Friday, January 22, 2010

Charges Dropped Against 9/11 Suspects

I am sure some of the truthers will get all excited, until they read the fine print.

Charges against 9/11 suspects were dropped "without prejudice" -- a procedural move that allows federal officials to transfer the men to trial in a civilian court and also leaves the door open to again bringing charges in military commissions.

All charges have been withdrawn in the military commissions against the five suspects in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The charges were dropped "without prejudice," according to the Defense Department -- a procedural move that allows federal officials to transfer the men to trial in a civilian court and also leaves the door open, if necessary, to bring charges again in military commissions.

Although how much do you want to bet that this will lead to truthers claiming years from now, "But members of al Qaeda are not even wanted for 9/11. They dropped the charges. It was in the news."

85 Comments:

At 22 January, 2010 21:22, Blogger Billman said...

Although how much do you want to bet that this will lead to truthers claiming years from now, "But members of al Qaeda are not even wanted for 9/11. They dropped the charges. It was in the news."

If they're not already...

 
At 23 January, 2010 04:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

any debunking of the gitmo "suicides?"
truth be damned!!!

 
At 23 January, 2010 05:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So much for using torture or shall we say enhanced interrogation techniques when trying to gain evidence to blame the attacks on Al-Q. Come to think of it, why were these charges dropped if there is so much evidence Bin-Laden and Al-Q did 9/11??? Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

 
At 23 January, 2010 05:44, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

any debunking of the gitmo "suicides?" truth be damned!!!

Any debunking of the accusation that you are a moron?

Its hardly surprising that a terrorists lawyer would make this allegation, but true or not it wouldn't prove 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 23 January, 2010 05:46, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

why were these charges dropped if there is so much evidence Bin-Laden and Al-Q did 9/11???

Which proves James's point, you scumbags don't give a damn about facts. It's a procedural issue, but no, to a twoofer it is twisted into evidence that the evil US killed its own on 9/11. Anything to slander America, even if it is made up!

 
At 23 January, 2010 05:58, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Jesus, Anonymous, do you realize you just fell into a trap?

I just know where going to hear the "So why did they drop the charges?" question for years and years.

 
At 23 January, 2010 06:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

any debunking of the gitmo "suicides?"
truth be damned!!!


This proves 9/11 was an inside job....how?

Also, you'll notice that what's been happening at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. eventually gets out. No matter how isolated the locations, no matter how few people are involved, it still sees the light of day.

Yet there still hasn't been a leak from anyone involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. Weird, huh?

 
At 23 January, 2010 07:14, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Plenty of leaks and plenty of revelations.Again:why didn't they let Minnesota open the laptop? Why was the SAble danger data destroyed? I guess you're waiting for someone to step forward and confess to being involved in mass murder,eh? Typical wacky cult stuff!

 
At 23 January, 2010 07:35, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Plenty of leaks and plenty of revelations.Again:why didn't they let Minnesota open the laptop? Why was the SAble danger data destroyed? I guess you're waiting for someone to step forward and confess to being involved in mass murder,eh? Typical wacky cult stuff!

Like I said, no leaks. It's funny how the most massive conspiracy in history, involving thousands of people, is the only one never to have its cover blown.

 
At 23 January, 2010 07:40, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Arhoolie said...
Plenty of leaks and plenty of revelations"

But no one comes forward to say, "Yeah, I was paid to plant military grade explosives in the elevator shafts of the WTC."

Why is that?

Hmmmmm?

"I guess you're waiting for someone to step forward and confess to being involved in mass murder,eh?"

Mheh......


"wacky cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

And get sucked into the OCD black hole of assholio's "truther" insanity.

 
At 23 January, 2010 07:43, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

And NY, just imagine the amount of money, fame and prestige the guy who revealed the George Bush plot against America would recieve from the leftist MSM.

Up front payments from, say, the New York Times, the book advance, the book sales, the movie advance......

But I guess any involved individual would be afraid of being fired from his job, right conspiratards?

 
At 23 January, 2010 09:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the trouble is that this site wants to keep pushing the "left v right" paradigm, the truth is it's the haves v the have nots.
there are plenty of 9/11 whistleblowers it's just that no one wants to hear what they have to say.
it's funny how there's never a conspiracy, watergate no conspiracy there, at least if you ask the rnc.
the CIA never overthrew an iranian president either, thats just a conspiracy theory that is prevalent in the middle east.
even when caught red handed, there was no conspiracy to the iran contra love fest, at least not around here.
of course the gitmo suicides are just a conspiracy theory, just like the 9/11 conspiracy theory

 
At 23 January, 2010 09:24, Anonymous Bob Spencer said...

"any debunking of the gitmo "suicides?"
truth be damned!!!"

A muslim killing himself....yawn...

How about we debunk the 72 virgins thing?

 
At 23 January, 2010 10:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

the trouble is that this site wants to keep pushing the "left v right" paradigm, the truth is it's the haves v the have nots.

Left vs. Right? What? I see a pretty even balance in the political spectrum here among those of us grounded in reality. Heck, there might actually be more liberal commenters than conservatives.

Haves vs. have nots. Yeah, that's deep, man. Let's see, we've got the billionaire black-sheep son of a construction magnate who leads a group that murdered 3,000 people, many of them working-class.

there are plenty of 9/11 whistleblowers it's just that no one wants to hear what they have to say.

it's funny how there's never a conspiracy, watergate no conspiracy there, at least if you ask the rnc.

Right. Nixon resigned to spend more time with his family, or something.

the CIA never overthrew an iranian president either, thats just a conspiracy theory that is prevalent in the middle east.

This proves that 9/11 was an inside job...how? Also, no Iranians are members of al Qaeda and Iran was supporting anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan long before the US got there. You're really not doing to well here, pal.

even when caught red handed, there was no conspiracy to the iran contra love fest, at least not around here.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

of course the gitmo suicides are just a conspiracy theory, just like the 9/11 conspiracy theory

Um, no. Try again man, after you've taken a nap.

 
At 23 January, 2010 11:54, Blogger Pat said...

The "whistleblower" at Gitmo revealed that he saw trucks being moved around that night. Compelling stuff. Connect the dots!

 
At 23 January, 2010 13:12, Anonymous Janissary said...

Anon at 9:07 sounds like a new one. Do petgoat or Krazee ever spew Marxist nonsense?
It's funny, all the conspiracies he mentioned were EXPOSED. There is a minor thing called 'evidence' to back up claims about Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The overthrow of Mossadeq was unfortunate. We listened to the British who told us he was sympathetic to the Soviets.
However, it's time to stop blaming all of Iran's problems on the Shah, the Mullahs have been in power longer than he was and have been just as repressive if not worse.

 
At 23 January, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Marc said...

"the trouble is that this site wants to keep pushing the "left v right" paradigm, the truth is it's the haves v the have nots. "

Really?

Cantor Fitzgerald a bunch of "Have-Nots"? I could see if they had crashed the planes into an unemployment office, but the World freakin' Trade Center? Plus, the Al Qaeda pilots and the Al Qaeda leadership are all wealthy themselves. How does the destruction of the WTC, and the near collapse of the airlines help the uber-rich?




"there are plenty of 9/11 whistleblowers it's just that no one wants to hear what they have to say."

That's because the "Whistleblowers" are usually proven to be frauds, or just painfully mistaken. Example, many of the people who had said that they heard explosions as the towers fell had neither heard a real explosion and had never heard the sound of giant concrete slabs pancaking together.


"it's funny how there's never a conspiracy, watergate no conspiracy there, at least if you ask the rnc.
the CIA never overthrew an iranian president either, thats just a conspiracy theory that is prevalent in the middle east.
even when caught red handed, there was no conspiracy to the iran contra love fest, at least not around here."

See, scooter, here's the gaint flaw in what passes for your "Logic". In the case of Watergate, we knew it was a conspiracy because there was EVIDENCE, and lots of it.See, EVIDENCE is needed to prove a conspiracy and in the case of Watergate there was a guy who's best known as "Deep Throat" who steered the two Washington Post reporter to the various smoking guns.

Not a single troofer allegation has ever been substanciated by an independant source.

The Iran Contra Case blew up for two primary reasons, the Nicarauguans shot down a CIA plane and captured an American named Haussenfuss (Eugene). Then those lovable Iranians ratted the US out, gleefully laying out documents, tapes, and the faulty Stinger missiles we had sold them. Again, the denail of conspiracy was aped by the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY. The 9/11 Truthtards have no evidence of a conspiracy.

As for throwing out the Iranian President, he was sucking up to the Soviets so that was a good thing. Even so, the men involved have written books about their involvement, and the CIA has released documents for public inspection and review.

The attacks of 9/11 were a conspiracy too. Al Qaeda trained operatives in Afghanistan, and in flight schools in the United States to take over and fly passenger jets into selected targets. The consiracy involved 20 hijackers, one detained before the attacks, the Al Qaeda leadership consisting of as many as 15 men.

The only crime or conspiracy on the part of the US government was the insistance that FBI agents and CIA agents follow questionable rules of investigation, and then failing to share information with eachother. Then you had the problem of the attitude that terrorists are a criminal problem, not a national security problem which left huge gaps in security. Then you had two Predients (Clinton & Bush) who's NSC teams treated terror as a secondary issue. As it turns out, the US was punished for those failures on 9/11/2001.

 
At 23 January, 2010 16:42, Blogger Triterope said...

Left vs. Right? What? I see a pretty even balance in the political spectrum here among those of us grounded in reality.

And conspiracy nuts who say DURR LEFT VS RIGHT DURR FALSE PARADIGM DURR REPUBLOCRATS DURRRRRRR needs to get a goddamn clue.

Hell, just look at the severity and the wide range of reactions to one issue -- Obama's proposed health care legislation.

 
At 23 January, 2010 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha! I don't think "truthers" will have a take on it one way or the other; its a procedural legal thing.
- Emory

 
At 23 January, 2010 18:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there's an attempt to draw an equivalence here between the withdrawal of charges and the FBI's Rex Tombs saying they had "no hard evidence" connection Osama to 9/11 it's dishonest.

Rex Tombs did say that, he did not repudiate it, and invoking the WaPo article that came out months later as if the first incident never took place is dishonest.

 
At 23 January, 2010 18:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Guantanamo suicides and Anonymous link at 4:27 -
The article dwells on the Harper's article and attacks Harper's but I am pretty sure I've read that this professor at Seton Hall (and the new NJ governor, a Republican, is a grad of Seton Hall Law) is the one who brought the issue to the fore.

Guantanamo Reports

I don't see how its a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue when it happened under Bush but Obama is covering it up. Its the epitome of bipartisanship.
-Emory

 
At 23 January, 2010 18:45, Blogger Billman said...

Ha! I don't think "truthers" will have a take on it one way or the other; its a procedural legal thing.
- Emory


I wish you were right, but they wouldn't be our definition of "truthers" if they actually thought this was a normal procedural legal thing (which it is).

 
At 23 January, 2010 20:52, Anonymous New Yorker said...

If there's an attempt to draw an equivalence here between the withdrawal of charges and the FBI's Rex Tombs saying they had "no hard evidence" connection Osama to 9/11 it's dishonest.

Right. They're both meaningless.

Rex Tombs did say that, he did not repudiate it, and invoking the WaPo article that came out months later as if the first incident never took place is dishonest.

Nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 23 January, 2010 21:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat says:
The "whistleblower" at Gitmo revealed that he saw trucks being moved around that night. Compelling stuff. Connect the dots!

Wow. A word of appreciation is in order. In an age of spin, Curley offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will never close. He stands superior to truth.

(Parody -- Jean-Pierre McGarrigle.)

 
At 24 January, 2010 00:01, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

any debunking of the gitmo "suicides?"
truth be damned!!!


I read that 7 of them are still alive.

 
At 24 January, 2010 05:05, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Anonymous, go fall into a puddle of AIDS.

(Honesty - Jim Norton)

 
At 24 January, 2010 10:29, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Again:why no opening of Moussaoui's laptop? You knuckleheads do know that it contained information directly related to 9/11? Wasn't this the same time as George Tenet was caterwauling around the Beltway with his hair on fire? "Leftist MSM"?!? Only a troglodyte like Ronnie the Weak makes such idiotic statements.Remember,Ron Sold Crack to Fund the Contras! Proven,undeniable and treasonous.

 
At 24 January, 2010 11:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We sold weapons to fund the contras, not crack.
Does anyone know what laptop he's babbling about?

 
At 24 January, 2010 12:14, Blogger Billman said...

Not sure if anyone is interested in this still, but here's more about the FBI and so called "No hard evidence" about Bin Laden:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm

Of special note is the "The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable." statement on this page.

 
At 24 January, 2010 14:11, Blogger Billman said...

Rex Tombs did say that, he did not repudiate it,

I cannot find a NON-truther site that has any posting of anything, article, video, whatever, of Rex Tombs saying that. Perhaps I am not googling hard enough. Can YOU provide me a non-troofer, non-infowars, non-debunker site (to be fair) link?


and invoking the WaPo article that came out months later as if the first incident never took place is dishonest.

Since when did it become "dishonest" to post a respected source from a non-biased (i.e. troofer or debunker) site? I think you mean it's: "more credible than the shit I've been posting."

 
At 24 January, 2010 15:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman, according to Project Censored the story was published in the Ithaca Journal in 2006. It's no longer available at the IJ website.

http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/nominations-for-november-2006/

What's dishonest is to misrepresent a later article or incident as if it were the former incident and the former didn't exist. It's a standard disinfo technique. "No, no, honey you didn't see me with some blonde at a fancy restaurant on Saturday. You saw me with my daughter at the park on Sunday."

 
At 24 January, 2010 16:22, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Billman, according to Project Censored the story was published in the Ithaca Journal in 2006. It's no longer available at the IJ website.

Perhaps because the story is nonsense? Even a small-town newspaper like the Ithaca Journal has standards.

What's dishonest is to misrepresent a later article or incident as if it were the former incident and the former didn't exist. It's a standard disinfo technique. "No, no, honey you didn't see me with some blonde at a fancy restaurant on Saturday. You saw me with my daughter at the park on Sunday."

It's not disinfo when it's the truth.

 
At 24 January, 2010 17:54, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, according to Project Censored the story was published in the Ithaca Journal in 2006. It's no longer available at the IJ website.

Fantastic. So you can't provide a link... geuss you're off the hook with having to prove anything, aren't you? Conveinient for you.

What's dishonest is to misrepresent a later article or incident as if it were the former incident and the former didn't exist.

But the latter contradicts the former, and you cannot provide anything that proves he actually said the first thing, yet the second things comes from a respected source and it's content contradicts the first thing anyway. You say the Ithaca Journal published it... that's the ONLY source you can find?

My link is credible, you don't have one that exists. HOW is that dishonest?

It's a standard disinfo technique. "No, no, honey you didn't see me with some blonde at a fancy restaurant on Saturday. You saw me with my daughter at the park on Sunday."

Oh but wait, the Bumfuck Egypt Daily Post had a link posted on thier site in 1086, uh.. it's gone now, but it had a photo that proved my daughter was with me at a fancy restaurant on Saturday. So you're dishonest... girl...

 
At 24 January, 2010 18:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY wrote: It's not disinfo when it's the truth.

But it's not the truth to claim that the second article is the first and the first doesn't exist.

Billman: "So you can't provide a link"

I provided a link to Project Censored.

"you cannot provide anything that proves he actually said the first thing.... yet the second things comes from a respected source and it's content contradicts the first thing anyway."

The second report did not contradict the fact that Rex Tomb said there was no hard evidence. Mr. Tomb did not repudiate his statement.

Project Censored is not the Bumfuck Egypt Daily Post.

 
At 24 January, 2010 18:47, Anonymous New Yorker said...

But it's not the truth to claim that the second article is the first and the first doesn't exist.

False.

I provided a link to Project Censored.

Nobody cares.

The second report did not contradict the fact that Rex Tomb said there was no hard evidence. Mr. Tomb did not repudiate his statement.

False.

Project Censored is not the Bumfuck Egypt Daily Post.

True. It's less reputable.

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:06, Blogger Billman said...

I hate doing your homework for you troofers...

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm

In THIS link it says:
"Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

REPORTED to have said that. Not a direct quote by him, but by someone else who claims he said that.

Reported BY WHO? That is the question.

It is not REX TOMB saying this, but someone else CLAIMING he said it.

And I can only find these things on troofer sites or people who are sympathetic to troofers.

And you provided a link to a website that you claim HAD the information, but doesn't now. What the hell does that prove?

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:09, Blogger Billman said...

On the bright side, with Google, I can find a lot of information on how to defeat the T-REX in TOMB Raider...

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:18, Blogger Billman said...

Reported BY WHO? That is the question.

Answering my own question...

Well, Brian, it turns out the link you provided say that it was Ed Haas from the Muckracker Report who allegedly asked Rex Tomb that...

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:28, Blogger Billman said...

All I can find Brian, is your Muckraker Reporter Ed Haas claiming Rex Tomb said that to him in a telephone interview.

NOTHING directly from Rex Tomb.

Rex Tomb has never verified that he said this.

There's no proof that Ed Haas even called the FBI, or even talked to Tomb.

We just have to trust his word for it.

That's enough for you?

I got a direct qoute from Rex Tomb himself talking to the Washington Post...

You got a report from some guy (who is frequented on 911blogger.com quite a bit) named Ed Haas claiming that he talked to Rex Tomb and claiming that Rex Tomb said that.

That's enough for you?

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:41, Blogger Billman said...

The second report did not contradict the fact that Rex Tomb said there was no hard evidence. Mr. Tomb did not repudiate his statement.

But wow do we know that he even said this? How does HE even know that he's been accused to have said that?

How do we know if he knows that it's allegedly "known" that he "knows" the FBI has "no hard evidence?"

So a person playing Telephone and "reporting" it to some paper in Ithaca, beats a direct qoute to a reputable paper?

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:48, Blogger Billman said...

Here's what I keep finding, Brian:

Pick any troofer site (the only thing Google pulls up) and you get:

(BIG BOLD LETTERS HALF THE SIZE OF YOUR SCREEN!!!!!!1!!): Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11!

Followed with (in italics)

"The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on america" - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb

Followed with in small print:
On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, Tomb said to Hass, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Can you find anything where Rex Tomb confirms this?

 
At 24 January, 2010 19:52, Anonymous New Yorker said...

C'mon Billman, 3rd-hand hearsay is ironclad proof when you're Brian Good and the only thing that gives your life meaning is the 9/11 "truth" cult you've so thoroughly devoted yourself to.

Of course, I've got 2nd-hand evidence that Brian stalked Carol Brouillet, so I'm sure we won't have that little bit disputed by him anymore.

 
At 24 January, 2010 21:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman, that's the nature of print journalism. When a journalist quotes someone, you have to trust that the journalist is telling the truth. Failure of the source to repudiate the quote is also evidence that the quote is real.

I had seen Ed Haas's article recently on the TPM website. Are you really going to maintain that an article that got an award from Project Censored doesn't exist?

When Saa wanted to rely on Yosri Fouda's claim that KSM had confessed to 9/11, I objected because Fouda was proven to have lied in his stories about the date the interview was conducted.

 
At 24 January, 2010 22:34, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, that's the nature of print journalism.

Except it's all online...

When a journalist quotes someone, you have to trust that the journalist is telling the truth.

Then why is there such a thing as a "retraction" in almost every daily newspaper or news website in existance? Why is it common these days for there to be segments on the media and hit pieces on CNN and FOX News about each other's crappy journalism?

...but I suppose we should just trust they are all telling the troof. Especially from unheard of print sources like those from Ithaca.

Failure of the source to repudiate the quote is also evidence that the quote is real.

That's like saying:
"Failure of a guy to speak out in anyway about the rumors so and so made about him being gay is evidence that the rumors are true."

Maybe he just doesn't feel the need to sink to your level.

I had seen Ed Haas's article recently on the TPM website. Are you really going to maintain that an article that got an award from Project Censored doesn't exist?

I wouldn't care if it got an award from Prisonplanet either (especially prisonplanet), or if Kayne West interrupted the article's VMA Award acceptance speech. Hell, even the Nobel Prize commitee is suspect these days...

...it doesn't make it proof of any 9/11 conspiracy.

 
At 25 January, 2010 00:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

.it doesn't make it proof of any 9/11 conspiracy.

Well I'm just going to have to start responding to everything with "Well that doesn't prove Osama did it!"

 
At 25 January, 2010 06:15, Blogger Billman said...

....it doesn't make it proof of any 9/11 conspiracy.

Well I'm just going to have to start responding to everything with "Well that doesn't prove Osama did it!"

Heh, I'll give you that. Cause technically, you're right. It was 19 hijackers that actually did it.

 
At 25 January, 2010 06:33, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Well I'm just going to have to start responding to everything with "Well that doesn't prove Osama did it!"

Go ahead and do so, Brian. We'll be laughing at your temper tantrum, and the scientific community will ignore you, as always.

 
At 25 January, 2010 08:35, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Let's wait to see them successfully prosecuted in a proper adversarial court setting. If what we have seen thus far is any indication I personally wouldn't bet on the government's success here.

 
At 25 January, 2010 09:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Let's wait to see them successfully prosecuted in a proper adversarial court setting. If what we have seen thus far is any indication I personally wouldn't bet on the government's success here.

Yes, let's see. Somehow I doubt there's anything less than ironclad proof of guilt involved, but that's because I inhabit planet earth, unlike most "truthers".

 
At 25 January, 2010 09:44, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Correction:Ronnie Sold Crack AND Weapons to Fund the Contras! Plus,he sent a birthday cake with a Bible to the Ayatollah Khomeini!!! Then he went on national TV and lied through his teeth about it.I think he came on TV a few weeks later to admit his bald faced,calculated cynical lie when the shit hit the fan.Has there ever been a bigger dumbass and vicious creep in politics than smiling Ronnie? Oh no,RonaldWeak will say,he didn't know what Ollie and Fawn were doing in the basement!!

 
At 25 January, 2010 10:00, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Has there ever been a bigger dumbass and vicious creep in politics than smiling Ronnie?"

"smatter, assholio, stilll mad that "dumbass" created the most susstained growth of hte American economy in history?

Or are you still pissed off that the "amiable dunce" destroyed your favorite thug regime, the Soviet Empire?

'Cmon, fess up.

Otherwise everyone here will take your insane rant as even more proof that you're actually from Planet Crazy.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronald Reagan turned tail and ran from Lebanon, emboldening suicide bombers, and then had to go kick Grenada to try to save face. He supported death and torture squads in Central America. He was a stupid, grinning monster.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:15, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Ronald Reagan participated in and spun genocidal actions by his CIA.Google General Rios Montt for starters,OK Mr.Weak."Amiable dunce and heartless killer",that's the rest of the quote,Pom Pom Girl.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:41, Anonymous Pinochet_Fanclub said...

OMG GENOCIDE!!! OMG OMG OMG!
Get over it Klown.

 
At 25 January, 2010 14:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
Ronald Reagan participated in and spun genocidal actions by his CIA.Google General Rios Montt for starters,OK Mr.Weak."Amiable dunce and heartless killer",that's the rest of the quote,Pom Pom Girl."


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

Yeah, I was right, the insane assholio weeely weeely misses the Soviet Union.

What, did you want to grow and becom a NKVD torturer?

Ooooopsy, St. Ronnie fucked your dream over big time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

 
At 25 January, 2010 15:50, Blogger Triterope said...

I had seen Ed Haas's article recently on the TPM website.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Ed Haas? Really? Oh well, with Christopher Bollyn running from the NWO, I guess some wacko has to fill the role of "independent journalist" who covers every lame conspiracy cause in hopes that no one will check his credentials. Go read Ed Haas' "reporting" on the Ed Brown standoff, for example.

Are you really going to maintain that an article that got an award from Project Censored doesn't exist?

No, but I'm going to maintain that Project Censored is a stupid joke and always has been.

These stories aren't censored; they're just not repeated in mainstream media because professional journalists actually have to confirm these outrageous claims. And -- surprise surprise -- they can't be independently verified.

 
At 25 January, 2010 16:16, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

PornBoy is obviously abusing the Hycodan.Again.And way to go out with a whimper,Tritedopey!Your assertion that "these outrageous claims...can't be independently verified"!?! My main man up in USA Jr.,that's about as dumb as it gets.I'm trying to remember the part of the brain that self-edits and maintains your reputation,as it were!You've inspired mo to look into the terminology! Bozo,you just have to get a hold of your self,it's getting to be like the Special Olympics or elder care or something,around here.Crikey,man!

 
At 25 January, 2010 17:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
PornBoy is obviously abusing the Hycodan."

assholio, speaking to the voices in his head.

Again.

 
At 25 January, 2010 19:09, Blogger Triterope said...

And way to go out with a whimper,Tritedopey!Your assertion that "these outrageous claims...can't be independently verified"!?! My main man up in USA Jr.,that's

OK, I'm just going to stop you right there. You are, without a doubt, the worst Internet poster I have ever encountered. You're not funny, you're not insightful, you're not competent, you're not entertaining. You're not crazy enough to laugh at, you're not annoying enough to hate, you're not benign enough to ignore. I'd call you a troll, but you suck at that too. You fail to generate any emotion in other human beings, except the fervent desire that you would just go away. I wish your fingers would fall off and your vocal cords would rot so you'd have to spend the rest of your life unable to express even your most basic needs. Then I wish you would catch fire in front of hundreds of people who could easily rescue you, but choose not to do so for the good of the human race, and because you couldn't signal them for help. Then I wish your ashes would be fed to monkeys, and that the feces of the monkeys would be fed to a G.G. Allin impersonator, who would then be shot into space. Then I wish you would be forced to spend eternity in an afterlife made up entirely of people like you: people who say the same five fucking things over and over and over and over with no regard to anything that's going on around them, like the people in Screamers. I really cannot imagine a worse kind of hell; a world where nothing reacts to your presence, your actions have no meaning, and you can't even be sure you exist. That's what it's like having a conversation with you; a vision of hell where I'm not even sure I exist. Anyway, my next wish is that a brain surgeon from the future would give the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind memory-eraser treatment to everyone who's ever met you, starting with your mother. As he slowly traveled the world, removing every trace of your existence from humanity at the cellular level, another enlightened soul from the future would travel back in time and destroy the physical records of your existence -- birth certificates, school diplomas, that sort of thing. Assuming, of course, that your hospital and elementary school haven't already disavowed you, in hopes of retaining their accreditation. Then a third time traveler would hack into web.archive.org and other services and, simply, erase every trace of you from the Internet. All your messages, all the responses to your messages, and just to be safe, every utterance of the word "boyo" would be eradicated... except for this post. This post alone will stand as a grim reminder to the human race of a scourge that threatened to destroy more brain cells than Everclear liquor and icanhascheezburger.com combined. Like a tersely-worded plaque at an genocide memorial, this message will tell the story of a horror that once was. And it will be the only evidence that you ever existed. That is what I wish.

 
At 25 January, 2010 19:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

[Applause] I second Triterope

 
At 25 January, 2010 20:19, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Damn, Triterope, you expended a lot more effort on him than he's worth.

I generally ignore spacebar guy because he isn't entertaining, just stupid. Brian Good is hilarious high comedy, so I poke at him.

 
At 26 January, 2010 01:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, James B, I doubt that truthers will in the future invoke the fact that charges were dropped in a procedural maneuver to transfer the prisoners to civilian authority.

But I note that the "debunkers" have no compunction about implying an illegitimate equivalence between on the one hand this as-yet-uncommitted sin of misconstruing the dropping of charges as evidence of innocence and on the other truthers' invoking of Rex Tomb's statement that the FBI had "no hard evidence".

Rex Tomb's statement was not a procedural maneuver. It was an official admission that he did not repudiate.

 
At 26 January, 2010 04:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Rex Tomb's statement was not a procedural maneuver. It was an official admission that he did not repudiate."

No, it's not.

 
At 26 January, 2010 06:29, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Rex Tomb's statement was not a procedural maneuver. It was an official admission that he did not repudiate.

False.

Let's see, the "truthers" have a 2nd-hand account of an article published in the Ithaca Journal (circulation of about 18,000) that does not appear on the website of the Ithaca Journal (perhaps because it's been retracted?).

The sane world has a direct quote from Tombs saying the opposite of what the "truthers" claim.

Once again, the "truth" movement loses in spectacular fashion. Maybe you should go ask Karl Schwarz whether he believes the FBI has enough evidence to arrest bin Laden?

 
At 26 January, 2010 07:06, Blogger Triterope said...

Let's see, the "truthers" have a 2nd-hand account of an article published in the Ithaca Journal (circulation of about 18,000) that does not appear on the website of the Ithaca Journal (perhaps because it's been retracted?).

Not to mention written by a lifelong conspiracy cheerleader in Ed Haas.

And it's the most poorly written excuse for a news story I've ever seen. Just read it. It does not resemble a newspaper story in any way. Real newspaper stories do not say "Haas did this, Haas did that, Haas tried to do this, Haas thinks we should ask this question, Haas Haas Haas Haas." Even editorials are written in the first person.

All this stupid story proves it that a kook with an agenda can occasionally hoodwink a small-town paper into running an article.

 
At 26 January, 2010 11:16, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The poor,poor pitiful soul.Only an idiot like Tritedopey would say that Project Censored stories can't be independently verified.And yes,you do get credit for the wackiest,yet most poetic screed ever posted on the internet!! Truly amazing Bozo!! Battle fatigue's a bitch,eh Goober? Lawrence Ferlinghetti's got nuttin' on you!

 
At 26 January, 2010 12:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cute! Impugn the Ithaca Journal, a more than respectful newspaper given its Cornell University ties, impugn the writer and, with no evidence whatsoever, suggest that a Project Censored award-winning article has been retracted.

Why don't you nimrods just call up Rex Tomb and ask him if he said what he has never denied that he said?

Clearly y'all live in a world where you just press up bigger and bigger pillows against your ears while shouting louder and louder "I can't hear you!"

 
At 26 January, 2010 12:32, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

It's gotten to the point that the Sophist ravaged Debunker Cult is merely boring tedious and,yes,dull.

 
At 26 January, 2010 12:47, Blogger Triterope said...

Only an idiot would say that Project Censored stories can't be independently verified.

Well, that's just one category of their stupidity. There's also "duh" stories like "Bank Bailout Recipients Spent to Defeat Labor". What's that? Rich people will financially support political candidates who will do what they want? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Then there's stories that aren't the least bit censored, like the ones about US school segregation and the recession causing states to cut welfare. These issues are well known, and openly discussed in every paper in America, as local events warrant.

Then there's banal opinion pieces like "US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street" and "Lobbyists Buy Congress." Gee, never heard that angle before.

To be fair, a few of the stories are adequately written and sourced, and resemble professional journalism at first glance. The Ithaca Journal story is not one of them.

 
At 26 January, 2010 13:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Impugn the Ithaca Journal

I did not impugn the Ithaca Journal, except to say that they might have once been fooled into running a dubious story. It happens.

a more than respectful newspaper given its Cornell University ties

It has no Cornell University ties, except that it is published in the same town where the university is. The newspaper is owned by Gannett. None of which is particularly meaningful; it's just another pathetic attempt by a Twoofkiddie to glom some credibility onto some laughable story they wish to be true.

impugn the writer

And I said precisely why I impugned the writer. The article is very poorly written. He is not a journalist (he's never been employed full-time that I can find any evidence of). He is a conspiracy promoter, and I gave an example. Other examples are easy to find. And notice he never writes about anything else; real journalists and real freelance writers do not have that luxury.

and, with no evidence whatsoever, suggest that a Project Censored award-winning article has been retracted.

It was said that the story was no longer available on the newspaper's website. To be fair, that's not proof it was retracted, but it's more than we ever get out of you lot. And I've adequately explained why "Project Censored" is a joke.

Why don't you nimrods just call up Rex Tomb and ask him if he said what he has never denied that he said?

Because I'm not your fucking secretary. You're the one who wants to believe it, why don't you call him and confirm it? As Billman rightly pointed out halfway up the page, it was only secondary-sourced to begin with.

But by all means, continue to assert that 9-11 was an inside job because Rex Tomb never repudiated something there's no proof he ever said in the first place. It's really pathetic, the intellectual turf you people have to defend these days.

 
At 26 January, 2010 13:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the Sophist ravaged Debunker Cult"

Ooooooo, Krazee, the Gormless Wonder Klown™ read a new word in his graphic novel.

Too bad he doesn't know what it means, but I am impressed that he spelled it right.

Way to go, guy, you get a ribbon and a lollipop!

 
At 26 January, 2010 14:02, Anonymous KrazeesBiggestFan said...

He got the word "sophist" from the 'roid-rage truther on the CIT post. I still think Krazee is a bot.

 
At 26 January, 2010 15:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Cute! Impugn the Ithaca Journal, a more than respectful newspaper given its Cornell University ties, impugn the writer and, with no evidence whatsoever, suggest that a Project Censored award-winning article has been retracted.

As someone who actually attended the university you know nothing about, I can attest to the Cornell student newspaper being the Daily Sun, and the Cornell news magazine being the Cornell Chronicle. The Ithaca Journal is tied to Cornell in the same way the New York Post is tied to Columbia or NYU.

And speaking of "no evidence whatsoever", you haven't produced the article. Perhaps it never existed in the first place? The most likely explanation is that the Ithaca Journal retracted it.

Why don't you nimrods just call up Rex Tomb and ask him if he said what he has never denied that he said?

Because we don't care. The man has said that the evidence to indict bin Laden is there. End of story.

Clearly y'all live in a world where you just press up bigger and bigger pillows against your ears while shouting louder and louder "I can't hear you!"

False.

 
At 26 January, 2010 15:09, Anonymous New Yorker said...

And since you're so enamored with the prestige of Cornell, have you tried contacting any faculty members in the engineering school or the architecture school to see if they agree with Richard Gage?

 
At 27 January, 2010 13:31, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Can you imagine anyone from the Debunker Cult calling anyone a "nimrod"? The Debunker Cult:truly The Wackiest Ship in the Navy!!

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:02, Blogger dgdgdf said...

peep-toe bootie Christian Louboutin Astraqueen shoe boots

platform lace-up

bootie
Christian Louboutin Suede Black Ankle boots supra fifre

120 thigh-high boots
Christian Louboutin Alta Ariella Talon Leopard

Boots
Christian Louboutin OTK PlatformAfrica grey suede Boot Christian Louboutin Alta Ariella Talon Leopard Ankle Boots Christian Louboutin black leather ankle boots Christian Louboutin dark red leather ankle boots Manolo Blahnik Something Blue Satin Pump Manolo Blahnik Something Black Satin Pump

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:02, Blogger dgdgdf said...

http://www.bootboots.com
http://www.salelouboutin.com
http://www.buylouboutin.com
http://www.bestlouisvuitton.com
http://www.sale-mbt.com
http://www.discount-

christianlouboutin.com

Velours Scrunch

Boots
Miss

Clichy 140 boots
Robot 120 ankle boots Black Suede/ Leather Lace Up Ankle boots Tina Suede

Black Platform Boots
Circus Cutout Suede Ankle Boots Deva 120 suede

fringed Boots
Sigourney Metallc Ankle Boots Miss Dark Brown Miss Suede Black Arielle A Talon ankle Boots

 
At 27 January, 2010 18:02, Blogger dgdgdf said...

Ariella

Clou Silver Studded Boots
Alta Arielle A Talon Python Short Boots Robot 120 ankle

boots Gold
babel

shoe boots Brown
Trottinette 140 ankle boots Brown Trottinette 140 ankle boots Mouse suede Forever Tina boots Purple fringed suede C'est Moi boots

Black
C'est Moi

boots Pink
Charme 100 suede ankle boots Leopard suede boots Christian

Louboutin Tuba Tall Boot
Fifre Suede Ankle Boot black lace ankle boots Black Lace-Up Boots

black fold-over

boots
black leather knee-high boots peep-toe bootie Christian Louboutin Astraqueen shoe boots

platform lace-up

bootie
Christian Louboutin Suede Black Ankle boots

 
At 29 January, 2010 06:30, Blogger Billman said...

Why don't you nimrods just call up Rex Tomb and ask him if he said what he has never denied that he said?

Fine.. I'll attempt to contact him. I'm sure my sister can hook me up with the FBI's public relations guy somehow... I'll let you know how it goes. May take a few days though.

 
At 29 January, 2010 08:17, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

To be fair,Trite 'n Dopey,you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.I do admire,however,your yeoman work in alerting the world to the conspiracy that Project Censored is a part of.These kind of dangerous anti-American cretins really must be exposed.Thanks to your vigilance we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

 
At 29 January, 2010 16:16, Blogger Triterope said...

Wow, Assholie, that's the third time on this thread you've gone NUH-UH! to my clearly-stated skewerings of Project Censored. Looks like I hit a nerve. Who knew you had a nerve?

And let me just clarify what it is we're fighting over. You are defending the honor of a website that once awarded a 16th-place finish to a secondary-sourced press release by a lifelong conspiracy promoter in an irrelevant newspaper.

I could concede the point and you'd still lose, just because what you're fighting over is so irrelevant it wouldn't matter even if it were true.

Again, it's pathetic what you people have to fight to defend these days. Pathetic.

 
At 29 January, 2010 18:08, Blogger Billman said...

Well, my sister helped me find this profile for him. But as for the FBI, well, he's retired now.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-s-tomb/14/aba/8b4

 
At 29 January, 2010 18:09, Blogger Billman said...

So.. you know how to contact him, troofers! Ask him wether or not he said that.

 
At 30 January, 2010 09:48, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Trite,dopey and what a sap! Hey Goofy,about your "clearly stated skewerings"!?! Say what?!? Yea,OK if you insist.Typical Debunker Cult twaddle,you make an absurd point and go down in flames insisiting on its inherent viability.R.I.P. Lunatic Cult! Hey Frozen Lobes,when you look at Ronald Wieck do you see an oily,smarmy,glib Neanderthal or do you see a handsome,well informed journalist with backbone and honor? Yea,I thought so!

 
At 30 January, 2010 17:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Zzzzzzzz.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home