How Indeed Could We Think of the Truthers As Kooks and Weirdos
I dunno, maybe it has something to do with this post at 9-11 Blogger:
To anticipate the cries from the loons that Webre is not some mainstream truther, let me remind them that he co-authored a memorandum to Congress recommending President Bush be tried for treason. Along with David Ray Griffin.
The main grounds for concluding that there is prima facie evidence that the named individuals - U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld - abused the power of their office and committed Article III Treason on September 11, 2001 are contained in a Legislative Memorandum to the U.S. Congress accompanying the 9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act. This Legislative Memorandum was co-authored by expert researcher David Ray Griffin, independent scientist Leuren Moret and attorney Alfred Webre.
Webre was also a featured speaker at the 2007 9-11 anniversary festivities in New York City:
The LaRouchies seemed to realize they weren't welcome at the event, but it's hard to think that the sermon they were preaching was any more outlandish than, say, that of Alfred Webre, who was given 45 minutes to talk on the topics "9/11 as a war crime" and the "development of [an] international tribunal" for the Bush administration. After touching on those subjects (to great applause), he veered off course, arguing that an "artificial intelligence matrix" controlled by the Rothschild family might have caused 9/11, that the cancer rate in Iraq now stands at 30 percent, that AIDS is a biological weapon created to control the population, that global warming is being caused by a black hole 23 light years from Earth, and that the NYPD was employing a supersonic crowd disruption device that was depressing turnout.
BTW, do you know what that 2007 conference was titled? "Ready for the Mainstream". Seriously, folks, you cannot parody these idiots.
Labels: Alfred Webre
posted by Pat @ 6:30 AM
118 comments
118 Comments:
Don't forget this...
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2009-05-15/be-aware-disinformation-being-promoted-alfred-webre
Pat lied. Yes...you...can parody these idiots.
Above the post:
Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it.
Reactions below, including Cosmos (a.k.a. "YT")
For the record
Webre is obviously either a crackpot or a disinformation agent, and hence is better left ignored.
— Pavlovian Dogcatcher
I concur
I concur, and lean toward the latter explanation.
— rm
I prefer Hanlon's razor
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
— Pavlovian Dogcatcher
Amazing
The most heavily trafficked 9/11 truth site is publishing stories about time travel... and some people still wonder why the cause isn't taken seriously.
— YT
How sad, and how opportunistic to lift this out of context as if Webre has any following. Obviously, Pat will latch on to anything. Actually, this goes to the core of what SLC is about: focus on the fringe: enlarge, then present as the whole.
In fact, this is what MSM does as well. Interviews with the 9/11 family members? First responders? Survivors? Let's not go there.
Too transparent.
Anonymous scribbles, "...Be aware of disinformation promoted by Alfred Webre"???
Imagine that, Willis! The "9/11 truth movement", which is NOTHING BUT DISINFORMATION, disseminates a warning about Alfred Webre's alleged "disinformation".
The pot calling the kettle black, anyone???
So remember folks, if the disinformation doesn't say "Disinformation Certified by ae911truth®" it's not real disinformation.
ae911truth: Disinformation® you can count on...
ae911truth: Where more Americans get their NewsSpeak® and disinformation®....
%^)
Well, I will give twoofers this much, they at least learned that "no true scotsman" isn't a good argument so they just pretend truthers don't actually say such nonsense. so i guess they got that one up on creationists.
Anonymous, the habitual liar and quote miner, prevaricates, "...How sad, and how opportunistic to lift this out of context as if Webre has any following. Obviously, Pat will latch on to anything. Actually, this goes to the core of what SLC is about: focus on the fringe: enlarge, then present as the whole."
Thanks for giving us another demonstration of your inability to read, Anonymous.
Aren't you conveniently omitting the following passage from Pat's Original Post?
"...To anticipate the cries from the loons that Webre is not some mainstream truther, let me remind them that he co-authored a memorandum to Congress recommending President Bush be tried for treason. Along with David Ray Griffin." -- posted by Pat at 6:30 AM on May 4, 2010 (SLC)
Obviously, Alfred Webre is a close associate of David Ray Grifter; thus, it's worse than disingenuous for the bullshitters™ who edit 911flogger to claim no connection to Webre.
Any more double talk for us, Anonymous? Or are you too busy quote mining the NIST Report on WTC7?
I was about to point out to Anonymous that his attempt at almost making a good point was nullified by the fact that Webre had co-authored with DRG, but you beat me to it GB.
I guess if anything, 911blogger proves there are layers of nuttery, and that there are kooks even too kooky for low level kooks. Interesting.
This is off-topic:
Is there one so-called "main theory" that all troofers subscribe to? Or is it still just sects, with the most prevailant one appearing to be the whole "WTC 1 2 and 7 were control demo'd using thermite paint" because of Jones and Co.'s paper.
Billman wrote, "...Is there one so-called 'main theory' that all troofers subscribe to? Or is it still just sects, with the most prevailant one appearing to be the whole 'WTC 1 2 and 7 were control demo'd using thermite paint' because of Jones and Co.'s paper."
In my opinion, the only member of the "9/11 truth movement" to formulate a theory, so far, is Dr. Judy Woods. Her theory is batshit crazy™, but it's a theory nonetheless.
Jones, Box Boy, et al, don't really have a theory, and are non-committal to the point of annoyance.
Thus, I think you answered your question when you wrote: "...Or is it still just sects, with the most prevailant one appearing to be the whole..."
Perhaps cult is a better word than "sect", given the cult-like behavior--complete with ritual ostracizing of heretics--exhibited over the years by the "9/11 truth movement".
"How sad, and how opportunistic to lift this out of context as if Webre has any following. Obviously, Pat will latch on to anything. Actually, this goes to the core of what SLC is about: focus on the fringe: enlarge, then present as the whole."
Anon, those little black wiggles on your computer screen? They're called letters. Do you notice how the letters are clumped together? That clumping is called a word.
Now, see how the words are compressed together? That's called a sentance.
The next step is called a paragraph.
Now, put all these pieces together and you know what they do?
They communicate information.
Which just whizzes right over your stupid, pointy little head, doesn't it, you fucking elbow licking moron?
Well, then, GB. That confirms my theory that none of troofers actually truly believe in a 9/11 evil plot, rather they just want people to agree with them that it's "possible" and to shell out a few bucks here and there for a t-shirt.
The question for the troofers shouldn't be "why doesn't anyone take them seriously?"
It should be "how CAN anyone take them seriously?" when NOT one of their most prominent supporters can form an actual coherent thoery as to what they think happened? It's all "I'm not saying THAT" and "Well, this is POSSIBLE." I.e. "the government is just inexplicably evil, ok, everyone? Gosh!"
" he veered off course, arguing that an "artificial intelligence matrix" controlled by the Rothschild family might have caused 9/11"
That's a good one. Though the notion that the evil axis of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were involved is equally demented. There's more chance of Jesus Christ appearing at at the top of Mount Rushmore & bullshitting about first responders & controlled demolition.
They communicate information.
Yeah, got it. Reading loud and clear:
Lazarus Long is a dumbass debunker cultist
Anything else?
"That's a good one. Though the notion that the evil axis of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were involved is equally demented. There's more chance of Jesus Christ appearing at at the top of Mount Rushmore & bullshitting about first responders & controlled demolition."
Like shooting fish in a barrel lol
"Anonymous said...
They communicate information.
Yeah, got it. Reading loud and clear:
Lazarus Long is a dumbass debunker cultist
Anything else?"
That's it?
You got nothing.
You're a pitiful loser twooooofer™, sitting in Mom's basement, covered in Cheeto crumbs and cranked up on Mountain Dew, speaking twooooof to poser, giving it to the man, just asking questions.
You poor contemptible little man.
You got nothing.
You're a pitiful loser twooooofer™, sitting in Mom's basement, covered in Cheeto crumbs and cranked up on Mountain Dew, speaking twooooof to poser, giving it to the man, just asking questions.
You poor contemptible little man.
This sounds like a theory. Where's the evidence?
Oh and 6'3" here, so wrong about "little man".
"This sounds like a theory. Where's the evidence?"
Every insane conspiracy theory you defend, every America hating rant you publish, every "look over there bunnies" misdirection you try, and fail at, every deliberate misreading of what the sane people around here post proves you're a pathetic loser, a tall little man.
Every insane conspiracy theory you defend,
How many of these theories do you think I've defended? Where did you read this? Links.
every America hating rant you publish,
I have no recollection of ever publishing "America hating rants". Where do you think I did this? Quotes.
I think my life is too short for this so I haven't watched it yet. But here's the Grifter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25365.htm
"Quotes."
Here's a quote, loser:
"Fuck you"
Lazarus Long said...
"Quotes."
Here's a quote, loser:
"Fuck you"
Thanks for admitting you're unable to prove your statements.
"Thanks for admitting you're unable to prove your statements."
Thanks for admitting you can't read, moron.
Here, I 'splain to you.
One of the things that I mentioned, one of the loser ploys you employ with clock like regularity is the "look over there unicorns" fallacy.
You just proved it.
Thank you.
And just a guess: you'll be too idiotic to understand what I just said.
Still no links or actual quotes? Lazarus Long is overrated as a debater. Or his short term memory is fried by drugs. I'll repost the exact request:
Quoting Lazarus
every America hating rant you publish,
I have no recollection of ever publishing "America hating rants". Where do you think I did this? Quotes.
The quote "fuck you" does not prove I've posted "American hatting rants". My break is over so there will be a couple of hours for Lazarus prove his statements when I return. Or make up more lies. Whichever he prefers.
How could he be "overrated as a debater" if no single person has ever praised his debating skills? Not even Pat defends Laz's garbage, and that's saying something.
All twooooofers™ are America hating fucktards.
Just go back and read any random thread ever published on SLC, including your mindless dreck.
I'll wait.
This jsut in:
Faisal Shazad, the Time Square terrorist bomber, is a registered Democrat.
It's neck and neck for PornBoy and the "Git" in the Most Unhinged Debunker Cultist race.My vote goes to "Git" because PornBoy is obviously insane so there's nothing to unhinge! If the ritual of ad hominens and personal insulting by the SLC gang against the millions world wide who qualify as "truthers" isn't evidence of being in a cult then I'm PornBoy's uncle.
If the ritual of ad hominens and personal insulting by the SLC gang against the couple thousand tops world wide who qualify as "truthers" isn't evidence of being in a cult then I'm PornBoy's uncle.
Fixed that for you. Otherwise, point noted. Are saying that troofers have never ever engaged in Ad-Homs, are are thus not equally guilty of that kind of behaviour?
Oh, and May the 4th be with you guys.
Wait... how come Webre is a crack pot and David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are not? Someone explain that to me.
"Arhoolie said...
It's neck and neck for PornBoy and the "Git" in the Most Unhinged Debunker Cultist race.My vote goes to "Git" because PornBoy is obviously insane so there's nothing to unhinge! If the ritual of ad hominens and personal insulting by the SLC gang against the millions world wide who qualify as "truthers" isn't evidence of being in a cult then I'm PornBoy's uncle."
Could someone translate that into Sane for me? It looks like assholio forgot his meds again and is talking to the voices in his head again, and rambling incohereantly.
Lazarus Long said...
All twooooofers™ are America hating fucktards.
Sorry, Laz that doesn't prove your assertion, no matter how many "O"s you add to "twoofer".
Just go back and read any random thread ever published on SLC, including your mindless dreck.
I'll wait.
So according to Laz any random thread at SLC is proof of an "American hating rant". Did that make sense to anyone without a lobotomy?
Scat Turdley said...
How could he be "overrated as a debater" if no single person has ever praised his debating skills? Not even Pat defends Laz's garbage, and that's saying something.
04 May, 2010 15:17
Point taken.
Anonymous engages in more misdirection, "...Sorry, Laz that doesn't prove your assertion, no matter how many "O"s you add to 'twoofer'."
Stop picking gnat shit out of pepper, Anonymous.
Don't you owe us an apology for lying about Webre's close association with Grifter?
So where's that apology, scumbag liar?
Don't you owe us an apology for lying about Webre's close association with Grifter?
So where's that apology, scumbag liar?
Uh, maybe...if I was the Anonymous who left it. Might want to ask first before your next foot-bullet.
"...Uh, maybe...if I was the Anonymous who left it. Might want to ask first before your next foot-bullet."
Uh, blow me, liar.
Ok, "Scat Turdley" is funny. Its juvenile so it should fit in with the rest of the hack jobs here. Try something challenging for a change.
Billman said...
This is off-topic:
Is there one so-called "main theory" that all troofers subscribe to?
yes, elements of the military industrial complex executed a flase flag attack to create justification for the domestic and foreign politics and industrial policy requred to maintain US military global dominance.
in the words of thomas donnelly, PNAC member, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event; like a new Pearl Harbor."
'How sad, and how opportunistic to lift this out of context as if Webre has any following. Obviously, Pat will latch on to anything. Actually, this goes to the core of what SLC is about: focus on the fringe: enlarge, then present as the whole.'
There is no 'fringe', you cretin. You're all batshit insane, whether you're LIHOP or MIHOP, no-planers or nano-thermite freaks, or whether you think the WTC towers were brought down by a directed-energy weapon or a tactical nuke. All you are doing is just exibiting different types of complete fuckwittery.
'yes, elements of the military industrial complex executed a flase flag attack to create justification for the domestic and foreign politics and industrial policy requred to maintain US military global dominance.'
Which was already assured prior to 9/11 by the preponderance of US military and economic power over the globe.
'in the words of thomas donnelly, PNAC member, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event; like a new Pearl Harbor."'
Have you actually read the entire document, as opposed to quote-mining it? Of course not. If you had, you'd realise that the authors were talking about the emergence of potential interstate competitors (such as China), and the need to ensure that the US military was not caught off-guard the way it was by the Japanese in December 1941. It's all about deterring state-based threats - 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' doesn't even mention al-Qaeda or radical Islam.
I know the document is 90 pages long, and it will test your attention span, but give it a try. If there's too many long words, don't be afraid to ask us for help.
Anonymous said...
"yes, elements of the military industrial complex executed a flase flag attack to create justification for the domestic and foreign politics and industrial policy requred to maintain US military global dominance."
Badda bing, badda boom.
Yet more proof that twoooofers™ are America hating scum.
sackcloth and ashes said...
Have you actually read the entire document, as opposed to quote-mining it? Of course not. If you had, you'd realise that the authors were talking about the emergence of potential interstate competitors (such as China), and the need to ensure that the US military was not caught off-guard the way it was by the Japanese in December 1941. It's all about deterring state-based threats - 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' doesn't even mention al-Qaeda or radical Islam.
I know the document is 90 pages long, and it will test your attention span, but give it a try. If there's too many long words, don't be afraid to ask us for help.
in their own words, PNAC, views biological warfare as wonderful political tool. if you had read the document you would know this, did you read it?
"in their own words, PNAC, views biological warfare as wonderful political tool."
Liar.
Lazarus Long said...
"in their own words, PNAC, views biological warfare as wonderful political tool."
Liar.
i know you have trouble if it's not translated into retardese, but it's on page 60.
here's the exact quote: “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
laz, learn to read, english please!
'in their own words, PNAC, views biological warfare as wonderful political tool.'
You either quote-mined this, or you are functionally illiterate. This is what it actually says (p.60):
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
'Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for US enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genomes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'.
The section this quote is taken from refers to specific developments which may transform the nature of war, NOT recommendations for US defence policy or military doctrine. In this case, it is patently obvious to anyone who isn't a cretin that the reference to 'biological warfare' - the only one in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' - refers to a potential means (like cyberwar) which an adversary of the US could employ in a future conflict.
But then why is it no surprise to see that a 'truther' has either deliberately misquoted his source, or not bothered to read it in full?
Jesus christ, Anonymous.. has there ever been a troofer who hasn't quote mined? Or at the very least quote mined and NOT been exposed?
Must you twist and spin everything? God, this is why people mock you, and why 9/11 truth fails at anything other than hilarity.
More's to the point, what kind of conspirators leave tantalising clues in published documents for troofers to follow?
Moreover, anyone with basic reading comprehension would see that the report was published in September 2000, two months before a Presidential election. If Gore had run a more effective campaign, PNAC wouldn't have mattered a damn.
What I said about "focusing" on the fringe was not the other Anonymous, who I'm rapidly becoming a fan of, btw.
Good job buddy!
I'm well aware of Pat's preemptive defense against distancing from Webre by the truth movement. This is how it works.
Suppose Frank Greening appears on Kevin Barret's show (which he did).
It is now open season on Frank Greening. No matter who Frank Greening is, no matter what credentials he has, Pat will equate Frank Greening to Kevin Barret, and that is that.
So instead of attacking DRG for exactly the views he espouses, he is discredited by association.
What Pat does here though is somewhat the other way around: he attempts to tenuously associate Webre with Griffin, then equates the Griffin with the truth movement, and then discredits the entire truth movement by this weak chain of slander.
That's how it works, douche platoon. Even Laz could have figured it out, like he figured out how Climate Change was all a left-wing conspiracy.
It's time for Pat to post his personal attack on Frank Greening for associating with Kevin Barret, to stay true to his modus operandi.
After all, all you have to do to find out what DRG thinks about Webre now, is ask.
Here's my definition of a crackpot: promoting things that are scientifically impossible. Such as alien visitors and interdimensional stargates.
However, it takes scientific schooling to determine what is and is not scientifically impossible, and it is here where both debunkers and truthers steer off the rails.
Is is scientifically impossible to conduct a false flag attack? Is it scientifically impossible to let a terrorist attack occur deliberately? No. For purposes of irony, I'll quote David Ray Griffin:
"Philosophers generally talk about three kinds of impossibilities: logical impossibilities (such as making a round square), metaphysical impossibilities (such as traveling back to the past [where you might kill your grandfather before he had children]), and physical impossibilities (which are ruled out by the laws of physics in our particular universe, such as the law of the conservation of momentum)."
It is scientifically impossible to stage a plane crash at the Pentagon? Probably not. However, I consider it extremely implausible.
Is it scientifically impossible to destroy the WTC with "space beams"? Yes. Therefore, dr. Judy Woods is a crackpot. Is it scientifically impossible to have nanothermite spontaneously form in a fire or collapse? Yes. Therefore, Harrit/Jones critics, are, by definition, crackpots, unless they prove an elaborate conspiracy of scientific fraud. So far, all they've been able to come up with is weak ad hominem.
There are several criteria to determine the possibility of a theory:
* Violation of one of the three possibilities mentioned by Griffin.
* Feasibility
* Precedent
If none of these are violated, then I want immediately hand wave such a theory, and I will be open to evidence. 9/11 false flag theory, it turns out, is replete with evidence. This is blog is merely a collection of pathological deniers, and studying it is similar to studying monkeys in a zoo.
Cheers!
And by the way, Sacknut and Fascist, do you think the war in Iraq can be explained by PNAC? How about the Afghanistan war plan, on Bush desk on September 10th?
Why would they leave such tantalizing clues for for foreign geostrategists and war critics to find? I have no idea. I think it's stupid of them to do so. But that is why we have Wikileaks as well. There is still enough transparency left for the citizens of the free world to expose wrongdoing. For now.
Note that nowhere in the PNAC document is a false flag attack and mass murder of American citizens discussed literally. No, that would be the Northwoods document.
Anyone familiar with such documents knows how to read between the lines. It's a plan for world domination, with Asia as a primary theater. The exploitation of a MASCAL event for geopolitical purposes is discussed as a catalyst for projection of military power.
And that is that, I don't a flying fuck what you pine cones think about that, or how you try to apologize for it. These people have no shame. That much was clear when we discovered torture is now called "enhanced interrogation".
And NEVER forget:
THIS is the REAL truth movement.
Call them "kooks" and "weirdos" as much as you want, but I think you guys, in turn, are a bunch of frothing cryptofascist brownshirts and warmongering state idolaters.
Good day.
"The section this quote is taken from refers to specific developments which may transform the nature of war, NOT recommendations for US defence policy or military doctrine. In this case, it is patently obvious to anyone who isn't a cretin that the reference to 'biological warfare' - the only one in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' - refers to a potential means (like cyberwar) which an adversary of the US could employ in a future conflict.
But then why is it no surprise to see that a 'truther' has either deliberately misquoted his source, or not bothered to read it in full?"
Thanks, s & a.
Like I said, anonoturd is a liar.
" Even Laz could have figured it out, like he figured out how Climate Change was all a left-wing conspiracy"
When did I ever say anything like that, anonoturd?
You better take you meds and have a nice long nap.
"Here's my definition of a crackpot: promoting things that are scientifically impossible. Such as alien visitors and interdimensional stargates."
You missed 9/11 as a government conspiracy, retard.
" 9/11 false flag theory, it turns out, is replete with evidence"
Only if you're a twoooofer™ conspiratard with only a passing aquaintence with reality.
"How about the Afghanistan war plan, on Bush desk on September 10th?"
Liar.
"Note that nowhere in the PNAC document is a false flag attack and mass murder of American citizens discussed literally. No, that would be the Northwoods document."
[facepalm]
"That much was clear when we discovered torture is now called "enhanced interrogation"."
The same kind of "torture" that college kids join fraternities for and some guys on the West Coast pay $350 an hour to have done to them.
Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick you are one short bus riding moron.
"Anonymous said...
And NEVER forget:
THIS is the REAL truth movement."
Oh, yet ANOTHER nutbag collection of frothing conspiratiods.
Thanks for proving the point for us, moron.
'And by the way, Sacknut and Fascist, do you think the war in Iraq can be explained by PNAC?'
Er, no. I think it could be explained by Saddam not complying with SCR687 for 12 years.
'How about the Afghanistan war plan, on Bush desk on September 10th?'
A war plan? Really? How come nobody except you know it exists? And if this 'war plan' exists how come the Joint Chiefs of Staff (you know, the guys who actually run the US military) knew nothing about it?
'Note that nowhere in the PNAC document is a false flag attack and mass murder of American citizens discussed literally.'
Or is it even alluded to.
'No, that would be the Northwoods document.'
Which those fiendish plotters declassified in April 2001. You know, that's how wicked conspirators work. They plot an atrocity, and make sure they base it on an old contingency plan from the 1960s. Just like Blofeld in all those Bond films.
'Anyone familiar with such documents knows how to read between the lines.'
Translation - 'OK, I admit it. I was quote-mining'.
'It's a plan for world domination, with Asia as a primary theater. The exploitation of a MASCAL event for geopolitical purposes is discussed as a catalyst for projection of military power.'
What is MASCAL, and does it have the same effects as Mescal?
And let's get back to basics, shall we? You're telling me that in the course of 9 months (between inauguration and 9/11) PNAC (or SPECTRE) managed to plan four fake hijackings, create 19 'ghost' hijackers with fake links to al-Qaeda, rig the WTC towers for controlled demolitions that would happen at the EXACT moment in which two planes crashed into them (all without any of the thousands of white-collar workers employed in the building noticing anything amiss), and then arranged for the following to cover it up:
The FBI
The CIA
The US armed forces
The FDNY, NYPD and other first responders
The FAA
United Airlines and American Airlines (who had to be persuaded to sacrifice two jets and crew, and take a hit on the stock market on top of that)
The BBC (and every other major media outlet)
The Canadian government (NORAD being a bi-national command)
The German government (who could verify the existence of the Hamburg cell)
The Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments (who could verify that their citizens were involved in the hijackings)
Al-Qaeda (whose leaders and juniors have repeatedly admitted culpability for some bizarre reason)
The staff from all the flight schools attended by the hijackers
And - finally - all those controlled demolition experts, physicists, specialists in pyrotechnics, professional aviators and structural engineers who for some reason don't endorse Jones, Harrit, Fetzer and Gage's claims.
That's quite impressive. Exactly how often do you have to abuse crank before you believe it?
Oh, I should have added al-Jazeera to the list of the organisations and individuals involved in covering up da troof. You know - the al-Jazeera which was a fervent supporter of Bush's administration, and which pumped out all that propaganda supporting the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
the other Anonymous, who I'm rapidly becoming a fan of, btw.
Good job buddy!
Yes, no surprise. Troofers love to self-congratulate themselves, and each other on... well, what exactly did he accomplish? Anything? Oh, wait, he flamed some anonymous people on the internet.
WOW! BIG VICTORY FOR 9/11 "TRUTH".
Which is all you troofers ever accomplish. "Hey! I made an ass out of myself! WOOOO!" wether it's in comment, or YouTube, or Fake 'peer-reviewed' paper form. Good job! So where's your "new investigation," huh?
Thanks for proving my theory (that I've become a "big fan of" btw:), that you guys just don't care about or believe in any real truth, but making yourselves seem smarter than you really aren't.
So instead of attacking DRG for exactly the views he espouses,
Have any of you troofers ever heard of a thing called "blog archives", and are any of you troofers aware that there is one for THIS VERY BLOG? And do any of you have the ability to... say, actually *click* on the archives? Cause you would see that Pat and James have directly responded to DRG (and everyone else) several times in the past. But, troofers apparently have the memory of a goldfish, so they can only see the posts on the main page, and everything else is forgotten. Wether this is deliberate at avoiding owning up that your theories never hold up to any kind of scrutiny, or simply an inability to understand what you claim to be so knowledgeable about isn't really up for debate. My guess is it's both.
It's also why you will continue to repeat debunked theories ad-naseum.
he is discredited by association.
Not that he even needs to be.
What Pat does here though is somewhat the other way around: he attempts to tenuously associate Webre with Griffin, then equates the Griffin with the truth movement, and then discredits the entire truth movement by this weak chain of slander.
When will you troofers ever realize that in print it's called "LIBEL" not slander?
Here's my definition of a crackpot: promoting things that are scientifically impossible.
Like nano-thermites (that are currently used as primers in ammunition, fireworks, and flares) can cut horizontally through steel beams and bring down 3 buildings after being applied onto the beams in a paint form, right?
Or again, promoting a substance called 'thermite' that doesn't act like thermite in any way, and EXPLODES without producing a loud bang or flash?
Such as alien visitors and interdimensional stargates.
K. Agree there.
However, it takes scientific schooling to determine what is and is not scientifically impossible, and it is here where both debunkers and truthers steer off the rails.
Yes, perfectly agree. Debunkers tend to agree with actual and real engineers and scientists who point out how impossible the troofer theories are. Where the troofer's tend to agree with 20 year old cut & paste film-makers who quote "science" from their chemisty text books, and theology professors who have barely passing credentials in physics, and who can't get thier work published in legtimate journals, so they have to make up their own.
Is is scientifically impossible to conduct a false flag attack?
No.
Is it scientifically impossible to let a terrorist attack occur deliberately?
No.
It is scientifically impossible to stage a plane crash at the Pentagon?
No. In fact, Navy Ships often have "Mass casualty" drills once a month, where in a scenario such as, the ship running aground, crashing into another ship, plane hitting, missile hitting, etc... is practiced for response to those situations.
But if you're suggesting staging for the purposes of blowing up thier own building and planting plane parts. Then, scientifically impossible? No. Implausible. Yeah.
Probably not. However, I consider it extremely implausible.
There you go.
Is it scientifically impossible to destroy the WTC with "space beams"? Yes. Therefore, dr. Judy Woods is a crackpot.
Yay. You realize that. So can we consider anything else she says to be irellevant now? Or will you still quote mine her if she says something that promotes anything you don't find too crazy?
Is it scientifically impossible to have nanothermite spontaneously form in a fire or collapse? Yes. Therefore, Harrit/Jones, are, by definition, crackpots, unless they prove an elaborate conspiracy of scientific fraud.
Holy shit, you're making sense. Oops. I took out the "critics" part. Now you don't make sense.
I don't think anyone here has said that nanothermite was ever found by Harrit/Jones, (it was in fact mislabled kaolinite that the spectra graphs in the paper itself prove, and this has been gone over many many times), so I do believe you are making that up.
So far, all they've been able to come up with is weak ad hominem.
GuitarBill and Myself have pointed out the flaws in that paper many many times, I myself have done so without ad hominem (not so sure about GuitarBill).
There are several criteria to determine the possibility of a theory:
* Violation of one of the three possibilities mentioned by Griffin.
So in order to determine the possibility of any theory what-so-ever, say the theory of Relativity, it has to violate one of the three possibilities mentioned by Griffin, does it? Griffin is the only real scientist in all of history, or something?
* Feasibility
I admit, some of things troofers have come up with are "feasible" like, an f-16 CAN shoot down a 767.
* Precedent
If none of these are violated, then I want immediately hand wave such a theory, and I will be open to evidence.
Except when it comes to the "no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire" claim. Troofers won't "hand wave" that. No, they'll just change it to "No steel structure OVER 100 stories and located in New York City has every collapsed due to fire", while forgetting that they've just thrown WTC-7 under the bus (hint, it wasn't over 100 stories).
9/11 false flag theory, it turns out, is replete with evidence.
Seriously. Where? WHAT evidence? If you have any, or even KNOW OF any, provide a link, and then I myself will take it to the FBI. Serious. WHAT IS THE REAL EVIDENCE that proves 9/11 was a False Flag?
This is blog is merely a collection of pathological deniers,
who post as "Anonymous" in the comments section...
and studying it is similar to studying monkeys in a zoo.
Couldn't agree more. You troofers make quite an interesting socialogical experiment.
Cheers!
Qa'pla!
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
I urge you to think about that statement and let it sink in. Reread it a few times. Let it bounce around in your head for a while. I'll tell you what it means to me. Let's take it apart and see what it says.
First, we have the idea of biological warfare that “can 'target' specific genotypes”.
So we're talking about some horrible disease that can be tweaked so that it will destroy anybody with a particular set of genes, and only those people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the name for killing a group of people that all share a common trait – in this case, a genetic configuration – is called genocide.
Ok, so we're talking about genocide. And in case we're unclear about the term “genocide”, it means, EVERYBODY who shares, in this case, a particular set of genes. Not just the “bad guys”. Not just the “soldiers” or the “terrorists”. Everybody. Men. Women. Children. Babies. Old folks. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc, etc. Every person with those genes. Every single one, guilty or innocent.
And, it's worth mentioning, foreign or American.
(And just in case you're thinking, “Well maybe they weren't talking about a 'horrible disease'.” If they weren't, then where does the “terror” come from, as in “realm of terror”? Somehow, I don't think they're talking about an annoying rash. Then they'd have to say “transform biological warfare from a serious inconvenience to a politically useful tool.” It's clear what they were talking about.)
And that last bit is the real clincher. “A politically useful tool.” We're talking about the ability to commit genocide. And they're calling it a “ politically useful tool.” No more “terror”, no more horror. POOF, it's been magically transformed into a wonderful tool, like a screw driver, or a good set of wrenches.
Let me ask you this: under what circumstances would you advocate genocide? If there were some kind of disease that was threatening to wipe out the entire human race, then I'd want to commit “genocide” against that disease, and destroy it all. But that – wiping out a germ – is about as far as I'd take it. I could live with that because, well, IT'S A GERM. But they're not talking about wiping out a disease, a germ. They're talking about USING a disease to wipe out people. Anybody AND EVERYBODY with a certain set of genes – wiped off the face of the earth.
So I ask you again, under what circumstances would you advocate genocide? And even if you could imagine some scenario – I've tried, but I can't – where genocide was the only option, would you ever so calmly refer to it as a “politically useful tool”? Arguably the most sinister crime that humans can commit, and they call it a “politically useful tool”?!
THAT'S who we're talking about. Men (and women) who
1) are currently or have recently been the most powerful individuals on the planet and
2) can blithely refer to genocide as a “politically useful tool.”
Again, I urge you to think about that. Dwell on it. Let it sink in. What are the implications of those truths, if you see them as truths?
What's the value of human life to people who could say such things?
What could such people – armed and empowered as they are, working day after day after day to expand their power – what could such people be capable of? Maybe it would be better to ask: what aren't they capable of.
For me, that's square one: knowing who it is we're talking about, PNAC.
"For me, that's square one: knowing who it is we're talking about, PNAC."
Ho-hum, another paranoiac fantasy ascribing to peoples motivations and aims they don't have.
Another America hating diatribe.
Lazarus Long said...
"For me, that's square one: knowing who it is we're talking about, PNAC."
Ho-hum, another paranoiac fantasy ascribing to peoples motivations and aims they don't have.
Another America hating diatribe.
ROFL
Laz, (and anybody correct me if I'm wrong), but what I got from what sockpupper was saying was that the PNAC was basically saying that it is imperative that we come up with defenses against the kind of people that would use these kinds of weapons.
That's how I read that.
And is THAT not a good idea, and what the PNAC was about?
*sockpuppet* not sockpupper. Damn G1.
Heh, my verification word is disese
Anonymous sock puppets his ass and bald-faced lies, "...First, we have the idea of biological warfare that “can 'target' specific genotypes”.
So we're talking about some horrible disease that can be tweaked so that it will destroy anybody with a particular set of genes, and only those people...Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the name for killing a group of people that all share a common trait – in this case, a genetic configuration – is called genocide."
So where did you cut-and-paste that pack of lies, Anonymous?
Besides changing the subject again in an effort to bury your lies about Webre's close association with Grifter via misdirection, now you treat us to more quote mining; this time your victim is the PNAC document.
In fact, troofers™ love to point to the PNAC document titled, Rebuilding America's Defenses, as proof of government involvement in the events of 911.
However, the troofers™ argument is based upon a statement which is taken out of context by an intellectually dishonest process called "quote mining".
The quote mined statement follows:
"...Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a New Pearl Harbor."
Source: Jones Report: Human-Deficient Brzezinski Exposed for 9/11 Culpability.
But that's only one sentence from the PNAC document.
What's the context of the statement "process of transformation"?
The following passage from the PNAC document reveals the context:
"...Information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effect of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."
Source: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.
So, the report states that integrating information technologies into the military will take a long period of time, unless an unexpected attack reveals our technological inferiority, in the same way Pearl Harbor led to the huge expansion of our Navy.
Not one word of the report urges regime change in Iraq, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Clearly, you didn't read the PNAC document, Anonymous. You parrot the same tired, long-ago debunked "truther" argument as fact without evidence.
Polly want a conspiracy cracker?
%^)
When will the "truthers learn? Context. Context. Context.
And, by the way Anonymous, don't you owe us an apology for lying about Webre's close association with Grifter?
So where's that apology, scumbag liar?
And remember, I'm just askin' questions...
Somehow I read that wrong, then.
Anonymous prevarivates, "...First, we have the idea of biological warfare that “can 'target' specific genotypes”.
So we're talking about some horrible disease that can be tweaked so that it will destroy anybody with a particular set of genes, and only those people...Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the name for killing a group of people that all share a common trait – in this case, a genetic configuration – is called genocide."
Clearly, you didn't read the entire PNAC document. If you'll take the time to read the document in context, you'll quickly discover that the PNAC document doesn't concern itself with genocide or foreign military adventures. Read on...
"...Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for US enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genomes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Source: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.
The context of the statement deals with "US enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces."
Thus, you can twist the PNAC document all you like, but the only person you've manged to fool is yourself, Anonymous.
And, by the way Anonymous, don't you owe us an apology for lying about Webre's close association with Grifter?
So where's that apology, scumbag liar?
And remember, I'm just askin' questions...
"Thus, you can twist the PNAC document all you like, but the only person you've manged to fool is yourself, Anonymous."
Like I said, an America hating liar.
Anonymous said...
What I said about "focusing" on the fringe was not the other Anonymous, who I'm rapidly becoming a fan of, btw.
Good job buddy!
No problem. But I can't take all the credit. Reading through the comments there's at least a handful of separate regular "Anonymous", a couple being debunkers. Nothing like debunker paranoia:
[quote] anything written by Lazarus[/quote] lol
BTW, I'm the Anonymous who asked for proof of "America hating diatribes". Which I see has never been produced. No surprise there.
"Anonymous said...
BTW, I'm the Anonymous who asked for proof of "America hating diatribes". Which I see has never been produced. No surprise there."
.
.
.
"Anonymous said...
"yes, elements of the military industrial complex executed a flase flag attack to create justification for the domestic and foreign politics and industrial policy requred to maintain US military global dominance."
Badda bing, badda boom.
Yet more proof that twoooofers™ are America hating scum."
Fom this thread, you elbow licking retard.
"Anonymous said...
"yes, elements of the military industrial complex executed a flase flag attack to create justification for the domestic and foreign politics and industrial policy requred to maintain US military global dominance."
a) Not written by me.
b) It may be hard for Laz to understand, but believing elements(part of an organization, not all of it) of the military industrial complex could be corrupt is not "hating America", because
c) "the military industrial complex" does not equal all of the government of the United States of America.
Don't you have a "Tea Party" to go to, Lazarus? Defend the Constitution from us "Libruls"! Lmao
"a) Not written by me."
Then it was written by.....you.
"b) It may be hard for Laz to understand, but believing elements(part of an organization, not all of it) of the military industrial complex could be corrupt is not "hating America","
Yes it is. You are accusing Americans of murdering Americans. Ergo you hate America.
" because
c) "the military industrial complex" does not equal all of the government of the United States of America."
Lurve lurve lurve how you use "the military industrial complex" instead of "them", it sounds ever so much more sophisticated than your ordinary run of the mill America hating conspiracy retard.
Sophisticated, I tell you!
AS in almost intelligent.
"Don't you have a "Tea Party" to go to, Lazarus?"
Stereotype much, fucktard?
Just an FYI, I have never attended a Tea Party event. Ever.
So, yeah, you're a fucking moron.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!
"Defend the Constitution from us "Libruls"! Lmao"
Working on it.
"b) It may be hard for Laz to understand, but believing elements(part of an organization, not all of it) of the military industrial complex could be corrupt is not "hating America","
Yes it is. You are accusing Americans of murdering Americans. Ergo you hate America.
Wow every prosecutor of a case of mass murder where the victim and defendants are American, hates America.
Whatever Lazarus does for a living, he's not a lawyer. If he was he would never prosecute an American murder suspect of killing another American, because that would be hating America, LOLOL!
You guys are better than Colbert.
Lazarus Long said...
"Don't you have a "Tea Party" to go to, Lazarus?"
Stereotype much, fucktard?
Just an FYI, I have never attended a Tea Party event. Ever.
A teabagger who doesn't go to tea parties? Guess that means I don't have to ask how the Mad Hatter and your other imaginary friends are doing down the rabbit hole.
Lazarus Long said...
"a) Not written by me."
Then it was written by.....you.
Whatever. Delusional Repulictard is delusional.
"A teabagger who doesn't go to tea parties? "
Better a teabagger than a teabagee like you, fucktard.
HAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
"Anonymous said...
Lazarus Long said...
"a) Not written by me."
Then it was written by.....you.
Whatever. Delusional Repulictard is delusional."
Delusional.
A twoooofer™ is a ccusing a sane person of being "delusional".
HHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!
Gotta love how the America hating conspiracy-mongering fucktards use projection.
"delusional"
BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!
"delusional"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
[wipes tears of laughter from eyes]
"delusional"
BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Yep delusional Lazarus Logic. Read it to believe it:
Yes it is. You are accusing Americans of murdering Americans. Ergo you hate America.
That would mean
every prosecutor of a case of mass murder where the victim and defendants are American, hates America.
Keep laughing teabagger boy.
"every prosecutor of a case of mass murder where the victim and defendants are American, hates America."
And I guess you think you're the "prosecutor", right, fucktard?
There is probably a long Latin name for your condition, but fuck it.
You're insane.
A crazy, America hating, fat sack of fail.
Now go take your meds and have a nice long nap, 'mkay?
You're insane.
I'm not the one who said
You are accusing Americans of murdering Americans. Ergo you hate America.
THAT'S insane, irrational and illogical. Enjoy your rubber room.
"I'm not the one who said
You are accusing Americans of murdering Americans. Ergo you hate America.
THAT'S insane"
No, that's straight up objective fact.
Now, about those meds, go have a handful and go beddy-bye, 'mkay, son?
What happened to the "prosecutor" schtick?
Lazarus Long said...
What happened to the "prosecutor" schtick?
OMG. The theoretical "prosecutor" was an example of how ludicrous your argument would be if anyone tried to use it IRL. The point being NO prosecutor would ever say that.
Accusing Americans of murdering Americans does not mean you hate America, unless you are saying every murder prosecutor who has ever gone after an American murderer hates America.
What.
A.
Moron.
Tell ya what, at your next Tea Party(yeah,yeah, you don't go, wink), just drink the koolaid.
"OMG. The theoretical "prosecutor" was an example of how ludicrous your argument would be if anyone tried to use it IRL. The point being NO prosecutor would ever say that."
Oh, c'mon, fucktard, you know you were playing it in your head, the hero fighting "The Man" with all his power, his plots, his mysteriosu powers, all his, well whatever else it is you fantasize about.
"Accusing Americans of murdering Americans does not mean you hate America"
It does if you're a twoooofer™.
"unless you are saying every murder prosecutor who has ever gone after an American murderer hates America."
W.T.F?
Um, that's yet more evidence of your insanity.
"Tell ya what, at your next Tea Party(yeah,yeah, you don't go, wink)"
You really are insane.
Pitiful, just pitiful.
So I close with the words of a wise man, whom I do believe actually knows anonoturd:
"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
"Accusing Americans of murdering Americans does not mean you hate America"
It does if you're a twoooofer™.
The circular logic makes your head spin. Weeee!
Oh, c'mon, fucktard, you know you were playing it in your head, the hero fighting "The Man" with all his power, his plots, his mysteriosu powers, all his, well whatever else it is you fantasize about.
Sorry, not my fantasy. Projection much. All you've proved is you're NOT mind reader.
It's nearly midnight. Guess I should leave you losers. Thanks for playing.
Anonymous scribbled, "...Sorry, not my fantasy."
I agree! In fact, this proves, once again, that you're a parrot for Box Boy, Jones, et al.
Polly want a conspiracy cracker?
%^)
The 911 "truth" Movement--Facts Are For Suckers.
@GB, Lassie Long, the other Bill, James B and Pat, Billman, and any other debunker
I refer you to this: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031125.htm, entitled 'Letter to the Editor of the Austin-American Statesman'. As you can see, it's on PNAC's website, and it's their response to someone else who interpreted the 'biological warfare' line in the way I did. Again, I'd ask that you read the above first (it's quick, less than a page) before going on with this email.
Assuming you've read their response (in all it's 'disgusted' and 'appalled' glory), I think it warrants a focused, methodical parsing. Here goes.
Evidently, someone named Kip Keller wrote a book review in the Austin-American Statesman, and in this review he referred to that now-infamous line in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' regarding 'biological warfare'. Further, and most importantly, Mr. Keller evidently used this quote to argue that the PNAC folks had, at least in some way, advocated genocide
The PNAC folks were outraged. Or to use their verbs, disgusted and appalled that anyone could make 'the assertion that our report advocates biological warfare or genocide in any way, shape, or form.'[1] Not only are they disgusted and appalled, they are absolutely emphatic that 'there is no evidence in the report to support the Statesman's assertion', and offer these three claims to 'prove' their innocence:
1. The report only makes reference to development of biological weapons within a discussion of worldwide trends.
2. The specific context of the quotation cited in the Statesman addresses methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not items or actions we recommend.
3. Not one of the report's recommendations suggests that biological weapons should be developed, let alone used.
Wow! How could I, and the gentleman at the Statesman (and you, for that matter, before you discovered your alternate interpretation), and countless others* have been so wrong? We'll get to that, but first, let's address that alternate interpretation. Simply put, nowhere in their 'outraged' rebuttal do the PNAC folks even hint that that quote refers to anything but a weapon of mass destruction. There is never even a hint that they are defending the practice of developing biological weapons for any use, just as there is never any hint that the possible use of such weapons would be for the assassination of individuals. In other words, they do not defend their advocacy of biological warfare – by claiming that it was only intended to be used on an individual basis – because they completely and utterly deny that they ever advocated it. In fact, they rest their entire defense completely on the claim that when they mentioned biological warfare as a potentially 'politically useful tool', they were referring to it as a threat to us, but never, EVER, as something that PNAC would advocate we, the good guys, use.
Let's look at their words again, in their letter to the Statesman:
At the end of the section on potential threats for which the U. S. must be prepared, the report states the following:
"Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
The PNAC gang claims to be flabbergasted that anyone would take the line out of context and use it in such a dastardly way. Yeah, that is a sneaky thing to do. And yet, one could quite easily argue that that's exactly what PNAC is doing, too! Here's my reasoning: the section that contains the line-of-infamy is entitled, 'Transforming U.S. Conventional Forces'; and in that section, leading up to our line, they list all the wonderful things, like 'new classes of sensors', 'communications networks… capable of carrying vast amounts of information', and even 'missiles in a box' (you want fries with that?), among others that their much-beloved 'revolution in military affairs' will usher into our arsenal. Then they get to the line about biological warfare, and clearly, they think it's another nifty technology to be exploited. Read it yourself, and take as big or as little a context as you like.
Because that's really the crux of it: no matter how you slice it, however big or small the context is, they can't rewrite what they wrote. And lest we forget, what they wrote is this:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
So for a moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that yeah, the Statesman article took that line out of context, and the context is what they now say it is, a list of things 'for which the US must be prepared'; and further, that they never advocated the use of 'biological warfare or genocide in any way, shape, or form', to use their exact words. Instead, as they claim, they are simply mentioning 'biological warfare' as one of many 'potential threats for which the U. S. must be prepared'. Okay. I personally don't think that makes sense, based on the larger context of the section, but let's just say, 'ok', for now. So if that's the case, if we're talking about the potential of some enemy of ours using this technology against us – a technology the PNAC gang would never, ever advocate – then what are they doing calling this technology 'a politically useful tool'? Or more precisely, how something in 'the realm of terror' (that's a bad thing, no?) be transformed 'to a politically useful tool' (which certainly sounds like a good thing), merely by the introduction of the ability to '“target” specific genotypes'? We're talking about a weapon of mass destruction that could potentially be used against us (since we ourselves would never use it against any one else)! So let's say, for example, that one of the bad guys out there launches such an attack against us and it kills scores, or hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of Americans. Would the fact that it was designed only to '“target” specific genotypes' make it a 'politically useful tool'? What do you think would happen to an American reporter who, after such an attack, referred to it – the weapon used to kill all those Americans – as a 'politically useful tool'? Fired? At least. Lynched? A definite possibility. In other words, who would EVER call such thing a 'politically useful tool' when it was to be used AGAINST us, and ONLY against us, never BY us?
As usual, I've probably made the same point too many times in too many ways. So I'll wrap it up like this: NOBODY would ever call such a 'technology' a 'politically useful tool' unless they thought it was a good thing – in SOME 'way, shape, or form', at least . And even if there remained a shadow of doubt regarding their original statement, they made it utterly unambiguous by saying that it could be transformed 'from the realm of terror' to a 'politically useful tool', simply by begin able to '“target” specific genotypes'. There isn't a context in the world that could make that sentence into anything but what it is: advocacy of the use of biological warfare, by the military of the United States. And by their own words, they were never calling for it's use as a tool of assassination, as indicated by the 'any way, shape, or form' nonsense in their response.
" How could I, and the gentleman at the Statesman (and you, for that matter, before you discovered your alternate interpretation), and countless others* have been so wrong?"
'Cause you're a moron? An idiot? An America hating conspiracy monger? Have the reading copmprehension skills of an ameoba?
All of the above?
Because "The specific context of the quotation cited in the Statesman addresses methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not items or actions we recommend."
Which just reinforces my conclusions abaove?
"So I'll wrap it up like this: NOBODY would ever call such a 'technology' a 'politically useful tool' unless they thought it was a good thing – in SOME 'way, shape, or form', at least . "
Yep, the reading comprehension of a pre-k scholar.
Lazarus Long said...
Yep, the reading comprehension of a pre-k scholar.
sorry, i know if it's not in retardese you have to get mommy to help, but if you really apply yourself i think you might be able to undstand some of the smaller words.
how would you define the words "Politically Useful Tool?"
how would you define the words "Politically Useful Tool?"
You're seriously arguing that how you interpret these words somehow proves 9/11 was an inside job?
Is this "evidence" to you?
Billman said...
How would you define the words "Politically Useful Tool?"
You're seriously arguing that how you interpret these words somehow proves 9/11 was an inside job?
Is this "evidence" to you?
I would say it's evidence of the callous disregard for human life exhibited by the proponents of the war on terror. I would say its evidence that architects of the war on terror have little reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis on the lies of WMD, since that’s the case why do we think they would blink when thinking about killing 3000 plus Americans.
How about you answer the question smart guys, how would you define the words "Politically Useful Tool?"
'sockpuppet', anyone with a brain reading 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' - and that chapter in particular - would realise that the reference to 'advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genomes' dealt with this subject in the context of potential future threats to the USA, and NOT potential weapons that the US military should employ.
Now let's take your somewhat bizarre fantasy, and unpick it, shall we?:
'First, we have the idea of biological warfare that “can 'target' specific genotypes”.
So we're talking about some horrible disease that can be tweaked so that it will destroy anybody with a particular set of genes, and only those people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the name for killing a group of people that all share a common trait – in this case, a genetic configuration – is called genocide.
Ok, so we're talking about genocide. And in case we're unclear about the term “genocide”, it means, EVERYBODY who shares, in this case, a particular set of genes. Not just the “bad guys”. Not just the “soldiers” or the “terrorists”. Everybody. Men. Women. Children. Babies. Old folks. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc, etc. Every person with those genes. Every single one, guilty or innocent.'
Now, there's a minor problem with your hypothesis here. If you're trying to argue that the 'war on terror' is a pretext to wipe out a specific racial or ethnic group, you face a major logical flaw:
Muslims are not a race. They are the followers of a religion.
So that means that Muslims can be Arabs, Iranians, Baluchis, Pashtuns etc. But they can also be Malays, Africans, Central Asians and even Europeans (Bosnians, Albanians, Turks, Pomaks, not to mention converts). And it follows from that that radical Islamists who become terrorists or militants can also be of any ethnic group, such as these folks below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Lindsay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6226935/Pakistan-discovers-village-of-white-German-al-Qaeda-insurgents.html
So if we follow your paranoid fantasy to its logical conclusion, those sinister PNACers must be recommending the use of biological weapons that destroy anyone from any genotype represented by the global Muslim umma. Which means that only the Inuits and possibly the Japanese are safe (Adam Pearlman's conversion means that even Jews can't be counted as 'reliable').
Is that your argument in a nutshell, or have I confused your bullshit for something coherent?
Poor Sackdoily,he still doesn't know anything about the calculated and sophisticated conspiracy to disenfranchise over 100,000 African-American voters in Florida in the run up to the 2000 Presidential election.Only a propaganda inhaling dipsomaniac,in a moldy living room,could fail to understand that Gore DID win the election and that a conspiracy was involved (and documented) in taking it away from him and the 50,000,000 American citizens who voted for him.In case you need leading to the outhouse,DogBoy,there's a chapter in Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" that will fortify your addled brain.But of course you know all this and have rejected it as "anti-American" garbage,haven't you,you lying,phony twit.
"Poor Sackdoily,he still doesn't know anything about the calculated and sophisticated conspiracy to disenfranchise over 100,000 African-American voters in Florida in the run up to the 2000 Presidential election."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA111
Oh, assholio, is there ANY stupid idiotic moronic fucking conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe in?
ANY?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!
"Only a propaganda inhaling dipsomaniac,in a moldy living room,could fail to understand that Gore DID win the election"
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
Oh, assholio, you poor pathetic mook, even the New York fucking Times disproved that myth.
And you can't get much more of a reactionary leftist rag than the NYT.
Do try to keep up with the times.
"and that a conspiracy was involved"
CUE SCARY MUSIC!!!!
DA DA DAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry dipshit, the Supreme Court said you're wrong, so eat it, dogboy.
I'll ignore the last half of your post because it's your usual rambling disconnected-from-any-reality mumblings of a street corner screamer.
There's nutty fruitcakes and then there is the loopy PornBoy.The odds were even that you'd be the first idiot to respond to my comment,you ossified troglodyte.
"Arhoolie said...
There's nutty fruitcakes and then there is the loopy PornBoy.The odds were even that you'd be the first idiot to respond to my comment,you ossified troglodyte."
Can someone translate this collection of grunts into English, please?
Thanks in advance.
Can someone translate this collection of grunts into English, please?
You mean this?
There's nutty fruitcakes and then there is the loopy PornBoy. The odds were even that you'd be the first idiot to respond to my comment, you ossified troglodyte.
Other than the usual spacing errors and a couple big words, that's pretty much plain English.
"Other than the usual spacing errors and a couple big words, that's pretty much plain English."
But it's completely sense free.
Who is this "PornBoy" that assholio is always nattering about? A voice in his head?
As to the rest of his rant?
Completely insane.
Who is this "PornBoy" that assholio is always nattering about? A voice in his head?
That's what he's been calling you for about six months now.
As to the rest of his rant? Completely insane.
I had no difficulty understanding it. He thought you would be the first to respond to his comment. Again, it's pretty much plain English.
I would define "politicaly useful tool" as standard big-word rhetoric used by pretty much every government document, and nothing to freak out inside jobby job style over.
But I agree with you one what biological weapons are, and the people who would use them.
"Triterope said...
Who is this "PornBoy" that assholio is always nattering about? A voice in his head?
That's what he's been calling you for about six months now."
Why would he call me that? More than likely he's talking to the voices in his head. Again.
"As to the rest of his rant? Completely insane.
I had no difficulty understanding it."
So what does that say about you?
Why would he call me that?
I guess the concept of a nickname is lost on you. You know, like when we called Boris Epstein "Borat"?
So what does that say about you?
That I speak English.
Now PornBoy is desperately citing the New York Times to argue that there were no shenanigans by Jeb and Kathy in the lead up to the 2000 election.There's played out and then there's PornBoy,a sick,weak and exhausted antique.The New York Times,nor anyone else,disproved anything DogBoy.
"Arhoolie said...
Now PornBoy is desperately citing the New York Times to argue that there were no shenanigans by Jeb and Kathy in the lead up to the 2000 election.There's played out and then there's PornBoy,a sick,weak and exhausted antique.The New York Times,nor anyone else,disproved anything DogBoy."
Can someone translate this gibberish into Sane, please?
Thanks in advance.
Who the hell else would PornBoy start aping,as he takes a shellacking,but the dim bulb from Illinois who sold crack on the streets of America under the guidance of a scumbag named Bill Casey? "I am presently unaware of any such operation,nor would I...".
"Arhoolie said...
Who the hell else would PornBoy start aping,as he takes a shellacking,but the dim bulb from Illinois who sold crack on the streets of America under the guidance of a scumbag named Bill Casey? "I am presently unaware of any such operation,nor would I..."."
Can someone translate this pile of vomit into Sane, please?
And this comes from the insane Paleo-Con PornBoy who now cites the New York Times to buttress his weak brew! can someone take this boob out for a walk or something?
Post a Comment
<< Home