How to persaude twoofers ... a prosecutor's perspective

[NoScotsman]

Hi. I've been a lurker of this board for a while ...thought I'd jump in with a slightly different perspective from some:

I find that many folks here tend to be positivist to a fault: they believe that empirical sense perceptions and formal logic are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought. Being a prosecutor, I understand that you cannot apply purely empirical or logical tools to what is, at heart, a criminal matter ... where the standards for evidence are much lower.

9/11 is a great topic to address this issue: All the available evidence supports the official story; yet, a surprising number of Americans flock to conspriracy theories. Skeptics wonder why they can't convert twoofers with precise logic and strict scientific positivism. Well, as someone who is adept as persuasion, I look at posts on this board and scratch my head.

Here are some quotes I cut/pasted from this board to illustrate my point:

"Northwoods is not empirical proof because what someone does 45 years ago is not proof of what someone does today." --However, tell a jury that a man has murdered before--and they're prone to believe he would again.

"PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement is not empirical proof because statements do not prove actions."
--Tell a jury a man has written in a diary that he wants his wife dead--and they'll think he's guilty.

"Evidence of coverup is not empitical proof of complicity in a criminal act."
--Tell a jury that a man is seen dumping clothes and a gun in a pond at night--and they'll think he's guilty.

---The above quotes are all "correct" (logically speaking) but as a prosecutor looking to persuade a jury (twoofers in this case) I won't rest my case on logic alone because I know what the jury is likely to be thinking (my responses below the quotes). You have to get down in the mud and address beliefs as well as facts--ESPECIALLY when those beliefs are faulty. When you dismiss beliefs you dismiss the very people you're trying to win over. In other words, meet your audience half-way--on THEIR terms. Stipulate (for example) that Northwoods and PNAC are evil documents that could possibly portend bad things for America (throw a dog a bone)--then, you explain how these documents are irrelevant in this case--especially in light of all the evidence.


Hard-line positivism works for analytical philosophy and hard science, but it doesn't work in the courtroom and it certainly doesn't help convert twoofers. The bottom line is: Facts speak for themselves. Let your audience decide what constitues "proper evidence" (they are going to decide for themselves anyway). That way they are more likely to arrive at the correct decision themselves (which amounts to true and lasting persuasion--i.e., a "belief").

[Totovader]

Hi. I've been a lurker of this board for a while ...thought I'd jump in with a slightly different perspective from some:

I find that many folks here tend to be positivist to a fault: they believe that empirical sense perceptions and formal logic are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought. Being a prosecutor, I understand that you cannot apply purely empirical or logical tools to what is, at heart, a criminal matter ... where the standards for evidence are much lower.

9/11 is a great topic to address this issue: All the available evidence supports the official story; yet, a surprising number of Americans flock to conspriracy theories. Skeptics wonder why they can't convert twoofers with precise logic and strict scientific positivism. Well, as someone who is adept as persuasion, I look at posts on this board and scratch my head.

Here are some quotes I cut/pasted from this board to illustrate my point:

"Northwoods is not empirical proof because what someone does 45 years ago is not proof of what someone does today." --However, tell a jury that a man has murdered before--and they're prone to believe he would again.

"PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement is not empirical proof because statements do not prove actions."
--Tell a jury a man has written in a diary that he wants his wife dead--and they'll think he's guilty.

"Evidence of coverup is not empitical proof of complicity in a criminal act."
--Tell a jury that a man is seen dumping clothes and a gun in a pond at night--and they'll think he's guilty.

---The above quotes are all "correct" (logically speaking) but as a prosecutor looking to persuade a jury (twoofers in this case) I won't rest my case on logic alone because I know the what the jury is likely to be thinking (my responses below the quotes). You have to get down in the mud and address beliefs as well as facts--ESPECIALLY when those beliefs are faulty. When you dismiss beliefs you dismiss the very people you're trying to win over. In other words, meet your audience half-way--on THEIR terms. Stipulate (for example) that Northwoods and PNAC are evil documents that could possibly portend bad things for America (throw a dog a bone)--then, you explain how these documents are irrelevant in this case--especially in light of all the evidence.


Hard-line positivism works for analytical philosophy and hard science, but it doesn't work in the courtroom and it certainly doesn't help convert twoofers. The bottom line is: Facts speak for themselves. Let your audience decide what constitues "proper evidence" (they are going to decide for themselves anyway). That way they are more likely to arrive at the correct decision themselves (which amounts to true and lasting persuasion--i.e., a "belief").

The difference, however, is that you are trying to convince someone (or rather, a group of people) whereas scientists/skeptics/debunkers really do not necessarily have that objective. If people choose not to believe the facts, that's their own prerogative. I think a lot of "us" have conceded that the contradiction between the so-called "Truth Movement" absolutely rejecting the truth is that the assumption that they're really interested in the truth is the wrong assumption.

Don't get me wrong- it's an interesting topic- but that's the first error I see.

The idea that our senses or logic is flawed as a way of understanding and interpreting reality is not contradicted by the legal process- it's just a different process altogether.

[Par]

"Northwoods is not empirical proof because what someone does 45 years ago is not proof of what someone does today." --However, tell a jury that a man has murdered before--and they're prone to believe he would again.


False analogy. Northwoods would only – at best – show that the analogous defendant had planned a murder, but rejected that plan.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My posts here are not to convince truthers of anything; they are to show demonstrable false evidence and/or irrational/illogical thinking. Just as you won't convince a YEC that the Earth is not 6000 years old and should rather put forth the evidence of how old it is so those coming across the issue can weigh the evidence.

I think the jury analogy breaks down because the jury is specifically instructed to be objective and look at the evidence, whereas truthers come into the discussion highly biased already.

[Brainster]

Good points, although I would point out that a prosecutor is not trying to sway people who've already made up their minds, and for the most part, neither are we. I'd love to be able to say that we deprogrammed tens or hundreds or thousands of 9-11 Truth Cult members. But it ain't going to happen because the Troofers don't proceed from evidence to conclusion; they go from conclusion to evidence. Try to prove to a liberal Democrat that Bush isn't evil or to a conservative Republican that Hillary isn't a witch. You'll be blue before you succeed.

And why would I stipulate that PNAC (for one example) is some sort of evil document? Heck, I don't think Operation Northwoods was an evil document; it was probably misguided, but the men who worked on it were good men who thought they were battling evil (as indeed, I think).

ETA: Welcome to the forums!

[Par]

"PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement is not empirical proof because statements do not prove actions."
--Tell a jury a man has written in a diary that he wants his wife dead--and they'll think he's guilty.


Straw man. In my experience, rationalists do not concede that the “new Pearl Harbour” statement is a genuine espousal of engineering or facilitating a new Pearl Harbour. Rather, they point out that the comment reflects no nefarious intent whatsoever, and is simply a statement of fact. Analogously, the man doesn’t state that he wants he wife dead, but merely states that the death of his wife would be the only way in which he could claim on her life insurance.

[slyjoe]

Just to add to what Totovader said, very few CTers that come here are open to what most people consider facts. A few have changed their minds after looking at facts, but the majority seem to cling to deluded views of the world that have little basis in what a rational person would call "facts".

And welcome to the forum :)

ETA: as others (Par, Brainster and Arkan) have pointed out while I was trying to hastily type.

[Par]

"Evidence of coverup is not empitical proof of complicity in a criminal act."
--Tell a jury that a man is seen dumping clothes and a gun in a pond at night--and they'll think he's guilty.


Question beg. The question of whether or not any compelling evidence of a cover-up exists is precisely the point at issue.

[Par]

(Incidentally, NoScotsman, apologies if my previous posts seem somewhat terse, and welcome to the forum.)

[Cuddles]

"PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statement is not empirical proof because statements do not prove actions."
--Tell a jury a man has written in a diary that he wants his wife dead--and they'll think he's guilty.

Except that PNAC did not say they wanted a new Pearl Harbour, they simply said what they thought would happen if a new Pearl Harbour occurred. Tell a jury that a man has said that if someone shoots his wife, she would probably die, would a jury still think him guilty?

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't know, guys, I think what NoScotsman says is worth at least considering. Although I don't know if I'd say I want to convert truthers, because they're not going to be convinced from mere debate; cognitive dissonance needs to set in. Rather, I'd say we're trying to convince lurkers, bystanders, and others coming into the forums. That's who I aim statements at.

So I think there's value in listening to someone experienced in convincing a jury. The "jury" isn't composed of truthers - that's the opposing party. Rather, the jury is composed of the bystanders.

Just my 2 cents.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, yes, and welcome sir (sir?)!

[slyjoe]

Good point EMH. And probably worth more than 2 cents.

[qarnos]

"Northwoods is not empirical proof because what someone does 45 years ago is not proof of what someone does today." --However, tell a jury that a man has murdered before--and they're prone to believe he would again.

That is an invalid analogy. How about this:

45 years ago, someone suggested to the father of the accused that he should commit a crime (not murder). The father of the accused refused. Ergo, the accused is guilty.

Hmmm... Your case doesn't look so convincing now.

[alexg]

Perhaps NoScotsman it would help if you would tell us how you would have addressed these points. However, I also agree that the analogies and examples you gave are simplistic.

[Par]

Personally, I’m not all that interested in merely convincing people. Any demagogue can do that. Indeed, many a conspiracy theorist can do that. I’m merely interested in applying science and rationalism to the subject at hand and refuting those who wish to distort and falsify an horrific act of terrorism in order to further their ideological agenda.

[Miragememories]

The real problem is you can't walk into a church and expect to get very far preaching an opposing religion.

MM

[Totovader]

The real problem is you can't walk into a church and expect to get very far preaching an opposing religion.

MM

I am shocked- absolutely shocked- that you would compare conspiracism to religion.

:mglook

[Miragememories]

I am shocked- absolutely shocked- that you would compare conspiracism to religion.

:mglook

Really?

Seriously Totovader, I actually shocked you with that remark?

Am I like a human taser now?

MM

[JamesB]

Except that PNAC did not say they wanted a new Pearl Harbour, they simply said what they thought would happen if a new Pearl Harbour occurred. Tell a jury that a man has said that if someone shoots his wife, she would probably die, would a jury still think him guilty?

Actually, more precisely it was a discussion what would happen in the absence of a new Pearl Harbor. An anology would be, "If my wife remains healthy we are going to retire to Florida."

[Par]

The real problem is you can't walk into a church and expect to get very far preaching an opposing religion.
I am shocked- absolutely shocked- that you would compare conspiracism to religion.


Banger.

[eromitlab]

I'd like to convert tr00thers, to show them the error of their ways of thinking in re 9/11. But it's not something I'd really pursue actively. Most tr00thers, not all, are going to stay wrapped up in their suspicions and allegations no matter what arguments are posed to them or what is presented to them. In fact, if you present a contradictory argument, you're likely to be screamed at and smeared for having a closed mind and refusing to see the "evidence" and "proof" that's all around if you'd just wake up and open your eyes. It's like a cult in the sense that it's damn near impossible to break someone who's fully invested in the woo away from their precious woo with logical, scientific or legal arguments. About the only way tr00thers are going to disembark from their existing train of thought is to do so of their own accord, to seek out a contradictory viewpoint on their own when they're ready to be open to it.

EMH makes the best point, for the work to go into presenting everything so bystanders who haven't bought in but might can see both sides, and see the fraudulence of the tr00th movement before wrapping themselves up in it.

[~enigma~]

Really?

Seriously Totovader, I actually shocked you with that remark?

Am I like a human taser now?

MM
Apparently this went right over your head but thanks for confiming the many times people said the impotent truth movement is a cult :)

[T.A.M.]

in reply to the OP:

1. I agree with your angle on this issue. I do think that if the goal is to persuade, or convert, the adversary/debating opponent, then strictly using logic and facts, will not likely work.

2. As others have pointed out, this is not, for the most part, the goal of most debunkers on this forum.

3. I think, however, that your advice is well placed, and this is why...

(A) The fence sitters and undecideds, may also need convincing with more than just evidence and logic. We often make the mistake of assuming most people will be convinced by the same things that convinced us. This is not necessarily true.
(B) Many who come here and post the "truther" view on some 9/11 element may not be hard and fast truthers, and therefore may be "convertible".

TAM:)

[gumboot]

I just thought I'd point out that in your first point - a Jury deliberating the guilt of someone who has a previous conviction for murder - Jury's are explicitly required to ignore previous convictions, and indeed letting the jury know that the defendant had previously been convicted of a similar crime would constitute a mistrial.

Previous convictions can only be raised during sentencing.

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

Interesting point of view...I have to ask, have you had any success with this method (using it with truthers, I mean, not in the courtroom)?

It would be interesting to test it and see how it fares. Sadly, I don't think I'm the right man for that particular job.

[Mobyseven]

Straw man. In my experience, rationalists do not concede that the “new Pearl Harbour” statement is a genuine espousal of engineering or facilitating a new Pearl Harbour. Rather, they point out that the comment reflects no nefarious intent whatsoever, and is simply a statement of fact. Analogously, the man doesn’t state that he wants he wife dead, but merely states that the death of his wife would be the only way in which he could claim on her life insurance.

On top of that, it seems from the document that a 'New Pearl Harbour' is not something that was actually desirable - PNAC advocated gradual change, not immediate change.

Having said that, I think NS's point stands even if the analogies he used aren't particularly good (keep in mind that not everyone has heard these claims over and over so many times that they debunk out of pure reflex :p )

EMH made a good point too, in regards to bystanders/lurkers.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The real problem is you can't walk into a church and expect to get very far preaching an opposing religion.

MM


And the most accidentally candid statement from a troofer of 2007 is...

[T.A.M.]

That statement by MM (thanks for quoting it so I could see it), is actually quite valid. However, it is moot to most of us here, as we are not in another church, we are in our own, and we are not attempting to convert members of the opposing religion.

A better analogy of what goes on here, is...

We are church members, in our own church, showing agnostic visitors (fence sitters) how our religion (science and logic) makes sense. At the same time we point out how another religion (9/11 truth) is false, and does not make sense. Usually we prove the latter by allowing a member of the opposing church a forum to preach their beliefs. When this occurs, it is usually enough to show the visitors how insane that religion is. If not, a few of us show the visitors the madness within it...

You could carry this analogy further. Our religion relies on verifiable data, relies on cold hard facts, whereas their's relies on speculation, coincidence, and "what ifs".

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

That's no religion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Death_star1.png

[Wildy]

False analogy. Northwoods would only – at best – show that the analogous defendant had planned a murder, but rejected that plan.

Although you must admit that NoScotsman does have a point there though. Truthers seem to use Northwoods in the way that it was suggested, in a false analogy.

When they mention Northwoods they do as much as they can to make the undecided (who are really something of a jury) forget that it was the government rejected the idea, and instead come up with the false analogy as an answer. How do you think a person would think if they were told about Guatemala or Iran or funding of certain groups coupled with Northwoods and emotive language?

[Jonnyclueless]

Twoofism is definitely the modern day religion/cult. It's all faith based and can't hold a candle to science. Yet people follow it thinking it will answer the problems in their lives.

The problem with the OP, is that he is thinking in terms of each argument being the entire argument. Where as it's the culmination of all these issues that make the case. And he is taking some of the quotes out of context and assuming they are the entire body of each individual argument. For instance there is more the the Northwoods argument than simply it being a really long time ago. There's the fact that it was never an actual operation. So his analog might be along the lines of "If the jury found out that the guy had never murdered anyone in the past, they might be more likely to believe he didn't murder anyone now".

But more importantly, I doubt hardly anyone is trying to change 9/11 cultists minds. That isn't needed. What's important is that the correct information be out there so that the 9/11 cults have a harder time misleading innocent people who may not be aware of these con artists.

[Mince]

Hmmmmm. Hit and run?

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually, more precisely it was a discussion what would happen in the absence of a new Pearl Harbor. An anology would be, "If my wife remains healthy we are going to retire to Florida."
coupled with a very long and in depth savings and budget plan to allow for money to retire to florida if the wife doesnt die, lol

[A-Train]

9/11 is a great topic to address this issue: All the available evidence supports the official story; yet, a surprising number of Americans flock to conspriracy theories. Skeptics wonder why they can't convert twoofers with precise logic and strict scientific positivism. Well, as someone who is adept as persuasion, I look at posts on this board and scratch my head.

All available evidence supports the official story? Well, maybe so. But as a prosecutor, you know that evidence can and should be challenged by the defense as to whether it is legitimate or not, and whether it therefore can be submitted at all to the jury. Such "evidence" as Mohammed Atta's flight training manuals left in his rental car, or Osama's audiotaped confession may indeed support the official story; but this evidence would first have to be submitted to a judge to test for its legitimacy. As with most of the evidence supporting the al-Qaeda story, this evidence can be dismissed as so much manufactured junk.

It is no coincidence that those involved in the perpetration and cover up of 9/11 have gone to great lengths to keep their "case" out of real courtrooms and instead prefer to "prosecute" it in the media.



"Evidence of coverup is not empitical proof of complicity in a criminal act."
--Tell a jury that a man is seen dumping clothes and a gun in a pond at night--and they'll think he's guilty.



I agree. For someone to cover up a crime does not imply he perpetrated it. However, you are the prosecutor. It is not your job to "prosecute" the faulty case made by some truthers that the US Government perpetrated 9/11. It is your job in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 19 al-Qaeda Arabs who perpetrated 9/11. That is a task that neither you nor anyone else have ever successfully accomplished.




---The above quotes are all "correct" (logically speaking) but as a prosecutor looking to persuade a jury (twoofers in this case) I won't rest my case on logic alone because I know what the jury is likely to be thinking (my responses below the quotes). You have to get down in the mud and address beliefs as well as facts--ESPECIALLY when those beliefs are faulty. When you dismiss beliefs you dismiss the very people you're trying to win over. In other words, meet your audience half-way--on THEIR terms. Stipulate (for example) that Northwoods and PNAC are evil documents that could possibly portend bad things for America (throw a dog a bone)--then, you explain how these documents are irrelevant in this case--especially in light of all the evidence.

Your arguments are generally correct, but you have to realize they cut both ways. As a defender of the official story, you should consider yourself lucky that most ordinary people who agree with the official story do so because they, like the mythical jurors you propose, are operating on their pre-formed beliefs, and not the facts.

If you tell someone that airplanes were hijacked by "Middle Eastern looking" men, who wielded knives and stabbed defenseless women; and that some of the witnesses relayed seat numbers of hijackers which matched up to various Arab names who are said to be members of a terrorist group..... of course these "jurors" are going to react the same way a jury does when it finds out that a defendant wrote about killing his wife in his diary. They are going to scream "GUILTY!" without a second thought-- regardless of the facts.

Of course, it has never been explained to them that the men on the plane could have been purposely portraying themselves as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs. They could probably never comprehend that there are professional intelligence agencies out there who are continually in the business of such tasks as penetrating airport security, manipulating patsies, and training their own personnel to carry out just such false-flag terror attacks as 9/11. Such concepts are rarely, if ever, explained in the film and TV industries that constitutes the "education" of most Americans, and therefore would never enter the thought processes of a typical American "juror" judging the evidence that al-Qaeda did 9/11.

[Zlaya]

False analogy. Northwoods would only – at best – show that the analogous defendant had planned a murder, but rejected that plan.

No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.

So your argument is a fallacy. Where is our Kennedy to stop such plans today?

[Zlaya]

Straw man. In my experience, rationalists do not concede that the “new Pearl Harbour” statement is a genuine espousal of engineering or facilitating a new Pearl Harbour. Rather, they point out that the comment reflects no nefarious intent whatsoever, and is simply a statement of fact. Analogously, the man doesn’t state that he wants he wife dead, but merely states that the death of his wife would be the only way in which he could claim on her life insurance.

Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Come on.

[Mince]

No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.


But how is Operation Northwoods proof of an inside job by a rogue element (snicker) of today's administration?

[Mince]

Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Come on.


So, if the "New Pearl Harbor" quotation means what you presume it to mean, why do you think the administration advertised that it was going to conduct the 9/11 attacks?

[defaultdotxbe]

Where is our Kennedy to stop such plans today?
drunk in a bar with todays lyman lemnitzer and todays robert mcnamara


(BTW it was mcnamara that rejected northwoods, not kennedy)

[Architect]

...but this evidence would first have to be submitted to a judge to test for its legitimacy....


A course in law might be of some assistance.

[beachnut]

No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.

So your argument is a fallacy. Where is our Kennedy to stop such plans today?
No sources, still no facts; perfect post. Please show your sources and proof who did what on this stupid truther like plan.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is your job in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 19 al-Qaeda Arabs who perpetrated 9/11. That is a task that neither you nor anyone else have ever successfully accomplished.

Two words: Zacharias Massoui

PWNED.

[T.A.M.]

All available evidence supports the official story? Well, maybe so. But as a prosecutor, you know that evidence can and should be challenged by the defense as to whether it is legitimate or not, and whether it therefore can be submitted at all to the jury. Such "evidence" as Mohammed Atta's flight training manuals left in his rental car, or Osama's audiotaped confession may indeed support the official story; but this evidence would first have to be submitted to a judge to test for its legitimacy. As with most of the evidence supporting the al-Qaeda story, this evidence can be dismissed as so much manufactured junk.

It is no coincidence that those involved in the perpetration and cover up of 9/11 have gone to great lengths to keep their "case" out of real courtrooms and instead prefer to "prosecute" it in the media.



I agree. For someone to cover up a crime does not imply he perpetrated it. However, you are the prosecutor. It is not your job to "prosecute" the faulty case made by some truthers that the US Government perpetrated 9/11. It is your job in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 19 al-Qaeda Arabs who perpetrated 9/11. That is a task that neither you nor anyone else have ever successfully accomplished.



Your arguments are generally correct, but you have to realize they cut both ways. As a defender of the official story, you should consider yourself lucky that most ordinary people who agree with the official story do so because they, like the mythical jurors you propose, are operating on their pre-formed beliefs, and not the facts.

If you tell someone that airplanes were hijacked by "Middle Eastern looking" men, who wielded knives and stabbed defenseless women; and that some of the witnesses relayed seat numbers of hijackers which matched up to various Arab names who are said to be members of a terrorist group..... of course these "jurors" are going to react the same way a jury does when it finds out that a defendant wrote about killing his wife in his diary. They are going to scream "GUILTY!" without a second thought-- regardless of the facts.

Of course, it has never been explained to them that the men on the plane could have been purposely portraying themselves as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs. They could probably never comprehend that there are professional intelligence agencies out there who are continually in the business of such tasks as penetrating airport security, manipulating patsies, and training their own personnel to carry out just such false-flag terror attacks as 9/11. Such concepts are rarely, if ever, explained in the film and TV industries that constitutes the "education" of most Americans, and therefore would never enter the thought processes of a typical American "juror" judging the evidence that al-Qaeda did 9/11.

and with that Occam's Razor shattered into a thousand pieces of metal...without the use of thermite I might add.

TAM:)

[hotrob1017]

Such "evidence" as Mohammed Atta's flight training manuals left in his rental car, or Osama's audiotaped confession may indeed support the official story; but this evidence would first have to be submitted to a judge to test for its legitimacy. As with most of the evidence supporting the al-Qaeda story, this evidence can be dismissed as so much manufactured junk.

Why would it be dismissed? Is there a serious challenge to its legitimacy?



It is no coincidence that those involved in the perpetration and cover up of 9/11 have gone to great lengths to keep their "case" out of real courtrooms and instead prefer to "prosecute" it in the media. ... It is your job in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 19 al-Qaeda Arabs who perpetrated 9/11. That is a task that neither you nor anyone else have ever successfully accomplished.

a) As has been mentioned, Zacarias Moussaoui.

b) When you say "prove in court", who exactly is supposed to be on trial? The actual perpetrators are all dead and apparently you've chosen to discount the aforementioned Moussaoui case.

c) Since the perpetrators are dead, they cannot be tried. However, if you believe that the federal government did commit these crimes, you've got a whole truckload of defendants right there in Washington. If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the MIHOP theory, we'll be waiting for an indictment that you CTers pushed for. After all, it would be pretty silly if you were just posting on the Internet about this and never actually taking steps to do justice.



No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.

You do realize that nowhere in the Northwoods proposal is there any suggestion of actually killing American citizens, right?


Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Have you actually read the PNAC document you're referring to? Just curious.

[Jonnyclueless]

Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Come on.

Ah yes, standard 9/11 cultist protocol of reading only a single line of that paper and not bothering to read the following statements that describe what is meant by the statement. Add some meaningless rhetoric about good and evil, and you have a 100% pure cult lemming such as Zlaya.

[Zlaya]

So, if the "New Pearl Harbor" quotation means what you presume it to mean, why do you think the administration advertised that it was going to conduct the 9/11 attacks?

They surely did not advertise anything.

How many do you think have ever read that document?

Consider also the fact that the Neocons, right after the attack, started comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbour...

You have to be kidding me, right?

[Zlaya]

Ah yes, standard 9/11 cultist protocol of reading only a single line of that paper and not bothering to read the following statements that describe what is meant by the statement. Add some meaningless rhetoric about good and evil, and you have a 100% pure cult lemming such as Zlaya.

Yes, i get it, i'm a clunkity clunk nutcase tin hat wearing twofer, clunkity clunk.

[Zlaya]

Two words: Zacharias Massoui

PWNED.

13 words, 1 comma and one period: Mentally tortured until confession man, whom his own doctors described as certifiably insane.

If you really believe the MSM propaganda about what Massoui confessed, and how he was treated, you ought to be treated the same way.:eek:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

13 words, 1 comma and one period: Mentally tortured until confession man, whom his own doctors described as certifiably insane.

If you really believe the MSM propaganda about what Massoui confessed, and how he was treated, you ought to be treated the same way.:eek:

1st, provide your evidence that Massoui was tortured.

2nd, is there a defendant these days who doesn't claim insanity? Either way, the judge and jury (12 of your peers) didn't buy it.

3rd, to convict Massoui, the prosecution had to effectively convict Al-Queada. Wich they did.

4th, can I add you ought to be treated the same way to my death threat collection? I don't have anywhere near as many as Gravy or Markyx but it's growing slowly but surely.

[beachnut]

Yes, i get it, i'm a clunkity clunk nutcase tin hat wearing twofer, clunkity clunk.
Is this your first fact filled post?

How does it relate to the OP? Oh, it is a confession, like evidence! Yes it is very strong evidence, you have posted to the OP. Good job. Nice confession.

[Mince]

They surely did not advertise anything.

How many do you think have ever read that document?

Consider also the fact that the Neocons, right after the attack, started comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbour...

You have to be kidding me, right?


Huh? If they did not advertise about 9/11 in the PNAC document, how do you even know about it and why are all the "truthers" (snicker) using it as evidence of complicity?

I think you're kidding yourself.

[Mince]

13 words, 1 comma and one period: Mentally tortured until confession man, whom his own doctors described as certifiably insane.

If you really believe the MSM propaganda about what Massoui confessed, and how he was treated, you ought to be treated the same way.:eek:


If you really believe Massoui was tortured into confession merely because Alex Jones and your other leaders say so, then you deserve to be perceived as people perceive you.

[chillzero]

Let's get back to the topic, and be less personal in responses please.

[Mobyseven]

13 words, 1 comma and one period: Mentally tortured until confession man, whom his own doctors described as certifiably insane.

Thirteen words, one comma, one period, mangled grammar and still no damn clue...

[DGM]

Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Come on.
I know that this is of topic but a correction needs to be made.

Dick Cheney did not co-write the document. He signed it yes, co-write no.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

See "project participants"

[Cicero]

No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.

So your argument is a fallacy. Where is our Kennedy to stop such plans today?

Where is our JFK today? God forbid another JFK ever occupies the White House. The country barely survived the 1000 days of the Kennedy administration. The continued attempts to resurrect the Camelot myth after the revelations of JFK's political and personel life are at best whimsical, and at worst desperate.

This compulsion to project JFK as a shinning beacon of character and courage is the sine qua non of the conspiracies-R-Us regiment. Oliver Stone's erroneous proposition that JFK would have pulled out of South Vietnam, ergo he had to be assassinated, is just not up to the required capacity to recharge JFK's post 1963 image.

In view of JFK's duplicity in an embarrassing host of clumsily executed operations, not implementing the comical "Northwoods" is hardly indicative of JFK's morality.

This is the same guy who had Patrice Lumumba, Rafael Trujillo and Diem assassinated and ordered Operation Mongoose to sabotage
the Cuban economy and assassinate Fidel Castro.

JFK offered a 150,000 dollar open contract on Castro. Samuel Halpern, the CIA executive in charge of Task Force W whose sole purpose was to assassinate Castro, wrote that the Kennedys were obsessed about wanting Castro dead "for personal reasons - because the family name was besmirched by the Bay of Pigs." Even up to his death, JFK was directing an effort to manufacture pretexts to invade Cuba. These efforts may have precipitated the Cuban missile crises.

JFK had asked Air Force General Edward Landsdale, an ex-CIA man, to go to Saigon and help "get rid" of Diem (he refused). Lt. Col. Lucien Conein was used instead.

And just for laughs, JFK was schtooping Lee Radziwell. Jackie's sister, while Jackie was in the hospital.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No you're wrong. If kennedy was not around to destoroy that plan, and Bay of Pigs, the military industrial complex would have executed many aspects of Northwoods.

So your argument is a fallacy. Where is our Kennedy to stop such plans today?
Any evidence for your assumption that JFK was the only thing stopping it from being carried out, or just your wishful thinking?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, i get it, i'm a clunkity clunk nutcase tin hat wearing twofer, clunkity clunk.

Well, that's a start, now time to correct everything else you have tried to pawn off as truth, that is really nothing but conjecture. I would start by reading that PNAC paper you keep quoting a single line of. I would at least read up to the following line where it explains the meaning of the line you keep misquoting and taking out of context because you mistakenly keep thinking it's saying they want to bring about a new pearl harbor. Reading is fundamental.

[Zlaya]

If you really believe Massoui was tortured into confession merely because Alex Jones and your other leaders say so, then you deserve to be perceived as people perceive you.


Look at you 'muse' can't even spell the name...

You really don't believe he was tortured, and messed up? After all the lies of this administration, all the corruption, all the torture, all the laws that were passed so far?

Habeas Corpus? Hundreds of years of history, and poof, gone, and here you are a 'muse' of some sort, telling me that he wasn't tortured.

You guys want proof?

The proof is in the pudding.
:jaw-dropp

[Brainache]

Look at you 'muse' can't even spell the name...

You really don't believe he was tortured, and messed up? After all the lies of this administration, all the corruption, all the torture, all the laws that were passed so far?

Habeas Corpus? Hundreds of years of history, and poof, gone, and here you are a 'muse' of some sort, telling me that he wasn't tortured.

You guys want proof?

The proof is in the pudding.
:jaw-dropp

I guess that this is a metaphorical pudding, like those cookies I was promised. Damn, I lost my recipe for virtual custard.

[Zlaya]

But how is Operation Northwoods proof of an inside job by a rogue element (snicker) of today's administration?

It's not a different rogue element. Its the same people. Cheney was in Bush admin since Regan. Eisenhower termed it 'military industrial complex'.

No need to snicker, these are facts.

[DGM]

It's not a different rogue element. Its the same people. Cheney was in Bush admin since Regan. Eisenhower termed it 'military industrial complex'.

No need to snicker, these are facts.
Northwoods, Regan?

PS Chillzero; She is not really a die hard debunker.

[Childlike Empress]

2nd, is there a defendant these days who doesn't claim insanity? Either way, the judge and jury (12 of your peers) didn't buy it.


I've seen a very interesting documentary that aired on german mainstream TV called "I am Al Qaida" about Moussaoui. It contained interviews with his mother and IIRC his sister in France. Long story short, his father was schizophrenic and at least one of his siblings is. The trial against this person was a joke. He is certifiably insane. I'm still waiting for trials against Binalshibh and KSM. Didn't Dubya announce to intent putting these "masterminds" on trial? What happened to that?

[Mince]

Cheney was in Bush admin since Regan.

Operation Northwoods was well before the Bush Administration. Again I ask you, how is operation Northwoods, conceived 45 years ago, proof that the current administration (rogue or no) executed the 9/11 attacks? And even if Cheney and the current Bush planned Northwoods themselves, how is that proof they planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?

Please elucidate.

[T.A.M.]

Moussaoui was sane enough to travel to the USA. He was sane enough to seek flying lessons. Just because he had a family history of Schizophrenia, does not mean he had it.

You suddenly obtain a medical degree and a residency in Psychiatry CLE? You then get to interview this man and determine from a prolonged interview and physical that he was certifiably insane?

The trial was a joke? Please show us how the trial was a "joke". I'd be interested in seeing your evidence for that...or are you merely venting your opinion on the matter?

TAM:)

[Mince]

The trial was a joke? Please show us how the trial was a "joke". I'd be interested in seeing your evidence for that...or are you merely venting your opinion on the matter?


Perhaps merely fowarding an opinion heard on the Alex Jones show or read from an internet blog?

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, TAM, it was a very good documentary (i think it was on arte) and they interviewed a lot of people including his lawyer and some sandbox friends of him. I have no reason to doubt the picture that film painted, fitting perfectly with his numerous confessions and retractions.

[Slayhamlet]

Look at you 'muse' can't even spell the name...

You really don't believe he was tortured, and messed up? After all the lies of this administration, all the corruption, all the torture, all the laws that were passed so far?

Habeas Corpus? Hundreds of years of history, and poof, gone, and here you are a 'muse' of some sort, telling me that he wasn't tortured.

You guys want proof?

The proof is in the pudding.
:jaw-dropp

-Where was he tortured, Zlaya? Who tortured him? The FBI?

-You do realize that Habeas Corpus was never suspended for Moussaoui, don't you? Do you even know what Habeas Corpus is? He was convicted in the court of law.

-The proof is in the pudding? Zlaya, what does that phrase mean? Do you even know?

ETA: Oh, and also, you misspelled his name first, genius.

[T.A.M.]

So what did the documentary conclude? He was insane? Did they have any medical professionals back this up? Did they provide a single expert witness at the trial to corroborate your claim he was "certifiably insane".

As others have said, almost everyone claims insanity nowadays. It is quite easy to "act insane", it is a completely different thing to prove it to a trained psychiatrist.

Likewise, the interviews, from what you are telling, were with HIS LAWYERS, and his FAMILY. Not like they had a vested interest in making him look that way...right???

TAM:)

[Childlike Empress]

I'm still waiting for trials against Binalshibh and KSM. Didn't Dubya announce to intent putting these "masterminds" on trial? What happened to that?


TAM, when will the trials begin? Please fill me in.

[Mince]

I have no reason to doubt the picture that film painted, fitting perfectly with his numerous confessions and retractions.


No chance he was playacting to give the appearance of insanity?

[T.A.M.]

CLE:

I have no Idea, how am I suppose to know?

TAM:)

[Childlike Empress]

If you are really interested i'm going to watch it again (seen it early this year) and report.

edit: No idea, k, thought i may have missed something that you all-knowing debunkers catched.

[T.A.M.]

Worse case scenario, if BUSH etal havent done so by 2008, then I am sure your favorite new democratic president will do do...so why sweat it.

TAM:)

[Childlike Empress]

No chance he was playacting to give the appearance of insanity?


He didn't appear.

[T.A.M.]

I think Mince was referring to the trial, and pre-trial interviews of him, not the documentary.

TAM:)

[Mince]

He didn't appear.


I'm not necessarily talking about the video. I'm talking overall.

[Childlike Empress]

Worse case scenario, if BUSH etal havent done so by 2008, then I am sure your favorite new democratic president will do do...so why sweat it.

TAM:)


My favorite new democratic president? What? Are you trying to play the pomeroo game? I know that the left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird of prey... :)

[Mince]

I think Mince was referring to the trial, and pre-trial interviews of him, not the documentary.

TAM:)


You are correct (as I noted above).

[T.A.M.]

oh dear god, CLE, I didn't think you were an NWO believer....oh well, you have just given me a whole new perspective on arguing with you.

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

TAM, when will the trials begin? Please fill me in.

Please don't ask questions of people you very well know have no way of knowing the answer. It's rude.

[Childlike Empress]

oh dear god, CLE, I didn't think you were an NWO believer....oh well, you have just given me a whole new perspective on arguing with you.

TAM:)


Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time i feel like trying to communicate with you.

[Slayhamlet]

Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time.

Since you're wasting our time as well, why stick around? It's a lose-lose situation.

[Mince]

Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time i feel like trying to communicate with you.


Perhaps The Loose Change Forums might be more your style and speed.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx


ETA: For the record, and for what it's worth, I'm interested in hearing your report on the content of the documentary.

[PhantomWolf]

TAM, when will the trials begin? Please fill me in.

I imagine once someone determines if they should be tried under a Military or a Civilian Court. That depends on if they are considered Enemy Combatants, or Criminals, something that is being fought out ion the US courts currently.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually, more precisely it was a discussion what would happen in the absence of a new Pearl Harbor. An anology would be, "If my wife remains healthy we are going to retire to Florida."

Actually this isn't right either.

Try "I'm going to Florida to retire when I'm rich enough, something that will take decades unless my wife dies and the insurance pays out."

[Cicero]

Look at you 'muse' can't even spell the name...

You really don't believe he was tortured, and messed up? After all the lies of this administration, all the corruption, all the torture, all the laws that were passed so far?

Habeas Corpus? Hundreds of years of history, and poof, gone, and here you are a 'muse' of some sort, telling me that he wasn't tortured.

You guys want proof?

The proof is in the pudding.
:jaw-dropp


A. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War
B. FDR sent innocent Nisei to internment camps for the duration of WWII
C. If a law, by definition, is one that was passed by both houses, passed by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President, isn't that exactly how the Constitution works?

But you will always have your dreams of JFK as the American morality savior.

[T.A.M.]

Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time i feel like trying to communicate with you.

Because I feel you are paranoid for believing in some powerful NWO should not sway you from reporting on the documentary, provided you report it from a factual point of view, rather than your "point" of view on it.

As for the rest, oh well...c'est la vie.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .You guys want proof?

The proof is in the pudding.

:jaw-dropp

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Mobyseven]

Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time i feel like trying to communicate with you.

I'm interested in the name of the documentary, so that I can look it up for myself.

[Mobyseven]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[preemptive explanation]'Proof' in this context is neither a synonym for 'evidence', nor a rating of alcoholic content. It is an older word that has fallen into disuse with the exception of some adages, meaning, 'test' or 'testing'. Hence, "The exception that proves the rule," does not mean that every rule has an exception, it means that the existence of an apparent exception tests the rule.[/preemptive explanation]

[Zlaya]

drunk in a bar with todays lyman lemnitzer and todays robert mcnamara


(BTW it was mcnamara that rejected northwoods, not kennedy)

and it's kennedy who fired lemnitzer, who wrote northwoods

[Zlaya]

Operation Northwoods was well before the Bush Administration. Again I ask you, how is operation Northwoods, conceived 45 years ago, proof that the current administration (rogue or no) executed the 9/11 attacks? And even if Cheney and the current Bush planned Northwoods themselves, how is that proof they planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?

Please elucidate.

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration...

I'm telling you it's the same people.

[Par]

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration... I'm telling you it's the same people.


You keep telling us all sorts of things. Perhaps you’d like to try evidence and argument.

[uk_dave]

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration...

I'm telling you it's the same people.

It's has to be, doesn't it? Otherwise your conspiracy fantasy falls apart.

[Brainache]

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration...

I'm telling you it's the same people.

Of course when you say people what you actually mean is immortal shape-shifting Alien lizards.

[Slayhamlet]

-Where was he tortured, Zlaya? Who tortured him? The FBI?

-You do realize that Habeas Corpus was never suspended for Moussaoui, don't you? Do you even know what Habeas Corpus is? He was convicted in the court of law.

-The proof is in the pudding? Zlaya, what does that phrase mean? Do you even know?

ETA: Oh, and also, you misspelled his name first, genius.

Nothing, Zlaya?

[Mince]

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration...

I'm telling you it's the same people.


Faith based evidence. Nice.

[Zlaya]

-Where was he tortured, Zlaya? Who tortured him? The FBI?

-You do realize that Habeas Corpus was never suspended for Moussaoui, don't you? Do you even know what Habeas Corpus is? He was convicted in the court of law.

-The proof is in the pudding? Zlaya, what does that phrase mean? Do you even know?

ETA: Oh, and also, you misspelled his name first, genius.


a) any dark hole, like camp x ray or Uzbekistan. He was tortured by foreign contractors, and doctors.

b) habeas corpus is suspended now, for padila. i do know what habeas corpus is, my spirit is at Runnymede

c) your brain is pudding, the proof is in your mushy brain. Stop with the hash, Man.

[Zlaya]

Faith based evidence. Nice.

Funny, so is believing that 2 towers can crumple into dust, in the same fashion, from quite different damage.

Yea, uhmhm..

Real world called, they want the soul back that you've stolen.

[Zlaya]

Of course when you say people what you actually mean is immortal shape-shifting Alien lizards.

O you follow Icke? good for you!

I've never heard that reference, that's as fresh as

"You're the weakest link, goodbye!"

[Zlaya]

A. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War
B. FDR sent innocent Nisei to internment camps for the duration of WWII
C. If a law, by definition, is one that was passed by both houses, passed by the Supreme Court, and signed by the President, isn't that exactly how the Constitution works?

But you will always have your dreams of JFK as the American morality savior.

Those were all horrible things. Why are you so proud that the history is repeating itself?

[Slayhamlet]

a) any dark hole, like camp x ray or Uzbekistan. He was tortured by foreign contractors, and doctors.

Zacarias Moussaoui (not Massoui) has not been out of the country since he was captured by the FBI in Minnesota in August 2001, on an immigration violation. Uzbekistan is a country, not a dark hole, and needless to say he was nowhere near it, let alone Guantanamo. He has had constant access to lawyers, was never in contact with any foreign contractors whatsoever, and the only doctors he may have seen would have only done what doctors normally do, attend to a person's health. Moussaoui himself has not once alleged that he was tortured, nor have any international NGO's such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Don't you think that puts a crimp into your reckless and foolish allegations?

b) habeas corpus is suspended now, for padila. i do know what habeas corpus is, my spirit is at Runnymede

But we're talking about Moussaoui, for whom Habeas Corpus was not suspended at all, remember? The fact that you thought it was, despite his having a full trial with due process, suggests you have no idea what Habeas Corpus is. You are very, very confused. (And it's Padilla, not 'padila')

c) your brain is pudding, the proof is in your mushy brain. Stop with the hash, Man.

Reported.

You don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean, yet you used it anyway. This is turning into a pattern of behavior, Zlaya, which should be very disconcerting to you. Doesn't it concern you at all when you get nothing right and continually show yourself up to be clueless, while at the same time expecting to be treated as a responsible adult? Any rational, mature person would be very ashamed off this kind of behavior, but you're not. Why?

[danielk]

Those were all horrible things. Why are you so proud that the history is repeating itself?
But if history is repeating itself, the US isn't sliding into fascism, is it?

[Mince]

Funny, so is believing that 2 towers can crumple into dust, in the same fashion, from quite different damage.

Yea, uhmhm..

Real world called, they want the soul back that you've stolen.


Whoa! Who said anything about 2 towers!? We were discussing Operation Northwoods! Your ignorance regarding physics and building performance is not evidence that the current administration (or any part thereof) planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

If you want to discuss your lack of understanding about the mechanism of building collapses, please start a new thread and I'll be happy to participate.

Back on topic: please provide the logical pathway that leads you to believe that the current administration (or any part thereof) planned and executed the 9/11 attacks because an entirely different administration planned (but did not execute) Operation Northwoods 45 years ago.

[Mobyseven]

Funny, so is believing that 2 towers can crumple into dust,

The only people saying that the towers crumpled into dust are the conspiracy theorists. Those of us living in the real world actually noticed the huge pile of steel, concrete and other material that was left standing where the towers had once been.

in the same fashion,

They both fell down, yes. Are you aware of any other direction in which objects can fall?

from quite different damage.

How was the damage 'quite different'? Both buildings were hit by planes, and suffered widespread fire damage as a result of the impacts. Seems lke pretty similar types of damage to me.

Real world called, they want the soul back that you've stolen.

If you're going to argue dualism now, be warned that it is quite possibly the most refuted philosophical position in the history of ever.

[Belz...]

It is no coincidence that those involved in the perpetration and cover up of 9/11 have gone to great lengths to keep their "case" out of real courtrooms and instead prefer to "prosecute" it in the media.

What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

Your arguments are generally correct, but you have to realize they cut both ways. As a defender of the official story, you should consider yourself lucky that most ordinary people who agree with the official story do so because they, like the mythical jurors you propose, are operating on their pre-formed beliefs, and not the facts.

Speculation.

Of course, it has never been explained to them that the men on the plane could have been purposely portraying themselves as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs.

"Could have" is what we call speculation. We're talking facts, remember ?

They could probably never comprehend that there are professional intelligence agencies out there who are continually in the business of such tasks as penetrating airport security, manipulating patsies, and training their own personnel to carry out just such false-flag terror attacks as 9/11.

Evidence ?

Such concepts are rarely, if ever, explained in the film and TV industries that constitutes the "education" of most Americans

Considering how many series and movies portray government complicity to crimes of all sorts, you're either not very knowledgeable in that area, or are lying.

[Belz...]

Frankly TAM, posting here is a complete waste of time. You people are so disingenuous. I've noticed you are not really interested in my offer to report about the content of the documentary, so be well until the next time i feel like trying to communicate with you.

Childlike indeed.

Why don't you report, and THEN we can discuss it ?

[Belz...]

Dick Cheney signed and co-wrote a document which brought up a hope for the “new Pearl Harbour” and you defend that evil man, and his Neo Conservative cronies?

Did you actually READ the document ?

Consider also the fact that the Neocons, right after the attack, started comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbour...

Oh, because the comparison really is extremely difficult to make ?

You're still in that dilusion that the agenda changes from administration to administration...

Different people have different agendas. Or are you going to claim that there is not really two parties in the US ?

You're still in that dilusion

Yeah, but it's homeopathic, so...

[Belz...]

Funny, so is believing that 2 towers can crumple into dust

Evidence ?

[Slayhamlet]

Zacarias Moussaoui (not Massoui) has not been out of the country since he was captured by the FBI in Minnesota in August 2001, on an immigration violation. Uzbekistan is a country, not a dark hole, and needless to say he was nowhere near it, let alone Guantanamo. He has had constant access to lawyers, was never in contact with any foreign contractors whatsoever, and the only doctors he may have seen would have only done what doctors normally do, attend to a person's health. Moussaoui himself has not once alleged that he was tortured, nor have any international NGO's such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Don't you think that puts a crimp into your reckless and foolish allegations?



But we're talking about Moussaoui, for whom Habeas Corpus was not suspended at all, remember? The fact that you thought it was, despite his having a full trial with due process, suggests you have no idea what Habeas Corpus is. You are very, very confused. (And it's Padilla, not 'padila')



Reported.

You don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean, yet you used it anyway. This is turning into a pattern of behavior, Zlaya, which should be very disconcerting to you. Doesn't it concern you at all when you get nothing right and continually show yourself up to be clueless, while at the same time expecting to be treated as a responsible adult? Any rational, mature person would be very ashamed off this kind of behavior, but you're not. Why?

Zlaya? Anything to say for yourself? The adult thing to do would be to admit you were very, very wrong. Are you an adult, Zlaya?