Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist

[Orphia Nay]

This story has been up at 9/11 Blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/21513) and Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/09/idiot-troofer-finally-takes-up.html) for a week, and it's just had an update:

"Dear friends,
as David Ray Griffin announciated in his letter to the 9/11 Truth Community on 9/30/09 on this blog, the website www.justiceformounir.org is now up and running.

The Committee for Mounir el Motassadeq is an international campaign for the reopening of his case, after a Hamburg (Germany) court sentenced him to 15 years in prison, for allegedly helping his friends, Mohamed Atta and Co. to prepare the attacks of 9/11. Mounir is undoubtedly innocent. First, he did not know anything of the preparations for 9/11. And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11.

By demanding the reopening of the trial, it is our aim to force a judicial determination that there exists no evidence of Muslim participation in the attacks of 9/11."


In Griffin's letter, he wrote:

"Our best chance of getting an investigation of 9/11 is probably through the court system, perhaps especially the court system of another country. The Mounir case may present a unique opportunity to get the falsity of the official story exposed."

That's some lovely, cognitively dissonant conviction there. ;)

I note that (a few) US truthers have jumped on this European bandwagon while remaining noticably mute about Khalid Sheik Mohammed. :oldroll: ;) Truthers. Always able to underwhelm you. :)

[Bobert]

Terrorists are just sooooo misunderstood!

[CHF]

It was only a matter of time before he took the next step in his revolting 9/11 "truth" journey.

Why not just piss on ground zero in order to get media attention, David?

[Brainster]

I love the page where they talk about the vilification Mohamed Atta (http://www.justiceformounir.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108%3Avilification-of-innocent-muslims-by-mass-media-and-states&catid=43%3Adiffamierung-durch-die-medien&Itemid=59&lang=en) has received from the press:

9. „The mass murderer Mohamed Atta.“ (Der Spiegel, 29 May 2004)

Shameful defamation of an innocent person [see legal definition of "innocent"]

It almost reads like a parody 9-11 Troof site.

[triforcharity]

******* Disgusting. Disgusting.

[Drudgewire]

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11.


There are no words...

[JamesB]

As I pointed out on the blog, they claim that the FBI "still" isn't sure who the hijackers are, sourced from a press release from September 27th, 2001. They also complain that none of the hijackers have been convicted in court. Seems to me though that it would be hard for them to receive a fair trial, based on the fact that they are dead on account of flying planes into buildings.

[dtugg]

Wow. What stupid, disgusting pieces of crap twoofers are.

[Orphia Nay]

I love the page where they talk about the vilification Mohamed Atta (http://www.justiceformounir.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108%3Avilification-of-innocent-muslims-by-mass-media-and-states&catid=43%3Adiffamierung-durch-die-medien&Itemid=59&lang=en) has received from the press:



It almost reads like a parody 9-11 Troof site.

:mad:

Call me paranoid, but I don't want my innocent computer to visit a site that shows sympathy for terrorists. :boggled:

[Audible Click]

Deluded, money hungry, fools. Err not us..them.

[Brainache]

"Dear friends,
as David Ray Griffin announciated in his letter to the 9/11 Truth Community on 9/30/09 on this blog,..."

I wonder if anyone from Al Qaeda will be making a similar announciation?

[UNLoVedRebel]

This is my favorite part.

9. Did the court take note of reports that Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al Shehhi were seen in the Philippines in 1997 drinking alcool [sic] and sleeping with prostitutes?

- No.

If that isn't the death rattle of the official story, then I don't know what is.

[~enigma~]

By demanding the reopening of the trial, it is our aim to force a judicial determination that there exists no evidence of Muslim participation in the attacks of 9/11.
Proof positive that religion causes brain damage.

perhaps especially the court system of another countrySomeone want to tell the ******** that Germany is a foreign country with a foreign court.

[Dave Rogers]

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11.

Nice to see that DRG has, quite demonstrably, crossed the line from misrepresentation and innuendo to outright lying. He might be excused for saying that the evidence is fabricated, misinterpreted or inconclusive, but he's clearly stating that it doesn't exist. Since he himself has discussed a lot of it, he can't even pretend he doesn't know it exists.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Again, personally I think it is Brilliant.

R. Gage was doing it too. It is called finding the gravy train and riding it. The Twoof movement in the west is dying. So go to the home of the terrorists homes and say "you are not guilty, no it was ..." and then get the donations.

ethically repulsive, but economically brilliant

[Childlike Empress]

That's some lovely, cognitively dissonant conviction there. ;)


You don't know what those words mean. I could tell you why justiceformounir is a worthwhile cause with a good chance of being successful, where the injustice lies and who's to blame for it. What you would experience then is cognitive dissonance. Same that happened in your abandoned Anthony Shaffer thread.

[JihadJane]

A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/US-Peaceful-Nation.htm)

[funk de fino]

A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/US-Peaceful-Nation.htm)

Spam

[Dave Rogers]

Care to post a brief history of the tu quoque fallacy while you're at it?

Dave

[funk de fino]

You don't know what those words mean. I could tell you why justiceformounir is a worthwhile cause with a good chance of being successful, where the injustice lies and who's to blame for it. What you would experience then is cognitive dissonance. Same that happened in your abandoned Anthony Shaffer thread.

Do you agree with this statement?

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11

[JihadJane]

Care to post a brief history of the tu quoque fallacy while you're at it?

Dave

So, if, for example, you abuse children and then foam at the mouth about child abusers it doesn't matter because of the "tu quoque fallacy"?

Is that how it works?

[twinstead]

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11

Yes. This statement is all one needs to know that Griffen is full of crap. Case closed.

[Dave Rogers]

So, if, for example, you abuse children and then foam at the mouth about child abusers it doesn't matter because of the "tu quoque fallacy"?

I'm going to pretend you were asking that question honestly, even though we both know you were being deliberately disingenuous.

Let's suppose you abuse children, and at the same time demand tougher sentences for child abusers. The tu quoque fallacy would be for me to say "But you abuse children yourself, so child abusers should actually be let off." A more defensible response would be "I agree, and you should suffer the same penalties."

Now, let's say a group of Islamic Jihadists are terrorists, and the United States claims that they should be punished for their actions. If you were to say, "But the United States carries out acts of terrorism too, so the Jihadists shouldn't be punished," that would be the tu quoque fallacy.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

[JihadJane]

I'm going to pretend you were asking that question honestly, even though we both know you were being deliberately disingenuous.

Wrong.

Let's suppose you abuse children, and at the same time demand tougher sentences for child abusers. The tu quoque fallacy would be for me to say "But you abuse children yourself, so child abusers should actually be let off." A more defensible response would be "I agree, and you should suffer the same penalties."

Now, let's say a group of Islamic Jihadists are terrorists, and the United States claims that they should be punished for their actions. If you were to say, "But the United States carries out acts of terrorism too, so the Jihadists shouldn't be punished," that would be the tu quoque fallacy.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

[twinstead]

So why isn't orphia nay foaming at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Uh, because the thread isn't about that?

[funk de fino]

This is worth posting again.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

Too funny

[funk de fino]

Uh, because the thread isn't about that?

Or even this sub forum.

[Dave Rogers]

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Because you're here to do enough of it for all of us.

Dave

[JihadJane]

Because you're here to do enough of it for all of us.

Dave

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

[16.5]

Wrong.

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Well, I see that the fact that you totally butchered the concept of a tu quoque fallacy has been adequately pointed out.

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?

Please feel free to comment about your own feeling for the jihadists, Jane. This is the thread for that!

[funk de fino]

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

Another attempt to derail?

[JihadJane]

Well, I see that the fact that you totally butchered the concept of a tu quoque fallacy has been adequately pointed out.

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?

Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?


I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Please feel free to comment about your own feeling for the jihadists, Jane. This is the thread for that!

Thanks for making it explicit that this thread is about emotions rather than critical thinking.

[Dave Rogers]

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

OK. I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Dave

[JihadJane]

OK. I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Dave

:confused:

[16.5]

Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Thanks for making it explicit that this thread is about emotions rather than critical thinking.

May I print this post up and put in a frame, with pretty bows and pastel colors spelling out the words:

HYPOCRISY?

Because it is ever such a fine example of that, JihadJane. I particularly enjoyed the fact that you took umbrage at my use of your words “foaming at the mouth” when those are the exact same freaking words that you used in your own post.

I am also considering framing it with the caption:

OBVIOUS DUCKING OF THE QUESTION.

But to be honest, my walls are covered with thousands of Truther quotes already where they do so.

Anyhow, anytime you want to address the question, that would be fine with me, or just duck the question, you are real good at that.

[Dave Rogers]

:confused:

In case you need a reminder, the question you specifically demanded I answer was:

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

And the only serious, rational answer I could possibly give was:

I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Since this forum is for the discussion of alternative theories concerning the 9/11 attacks, it seems reasonable to call into question the relevance of the question by asking,

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

If you can't even follow this conversation, is it possible that your understanding of world affairs is similarly deficient?

Dave

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.


Which would, regardless of the truth or falsity of your elaborate house of cards, in no way:

(1) show Atta was not guilty;
(2) show Mounir el Motassadeq is not guilty;
(3) show Griffin is right about anything;
(4) show that anyone was wrong when they posit he is lying about a "shred" of evidence; or
(5) have anything to do with the topic of the thread.

So it is merely off-topic trolling and an attempt at a derail. If you really want to discuss the myriad topics brought up in your derail, please start a thread. Or three.

[JihadJane]

May I print this post up and put in a frame, with pretty bows and pastel colors spelling out the words:

HYPOCRISY?

Because it is ever such a fine example of that, JihadJane. I particularly enjoyed the fact that you took umbrage at my use of your words “foaming at the mouth” when those are the exact same freaking words that you used in your own post.

No umbrage. They were straight questions. Can you answer them?

I am also considering framing it with the caption:

OBVIOUS DUCKING OF THE QUESTION.

But to be honest, my walls are covered with thousands of Truther quotes already where they do so.

Anyhow, anytime you want to address the question, that would be fine with me, or just duck the question, you are real good at that.

I answered your question with two questions:

"Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?"

They were rhetorical ones, related to the OP.

[funk de fino]

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Or maybe the fact this is the 911 CT sub forum would explain it. A thread about what you spammed about, would be OT in here.

[16.5]

I answered your question with two questions:


Giggle! That is borderline stundilicious, JJ!

Next time just cut and paste the following:

I JIHADJANE AM OBVIOUSLY DUCKING A STRAIGHT AND INCONVIENIENT QUESTION REGARDING MY OBVIOUS TERRORIST SYMPATHIES

It is more subtle that way.

[MarkyX]

Just like how Holocaust Deniers say Hitler was misunderstood, now we have 9/11 deniers saying how these muslim extremists are misunderstood.

I didn't realize my 9/11 denial term would be so damn accurate in just a short number of years.

[JihadJane]

Which would, regardless of the truth or falsity of your elaborate house of cards, in no way:

(1) show Atta was ot guilty;
(2) show Mounir el Motassadeq is not guilty;
(3) show Griffin is right about anything;
(4) show that anyone was wrong when they posit he is lying about a "shred" of evidence; or
(5) have anything to do with the topic of the thread.

So it is merely off-topic trolling and an attempt at a derail. If you really want to discuss the myriad topics brought up in your derail, please start a thread. Or three.

The punchline of the OP is

Truthers. Always able to underwhelm you.

The underlying message of the OP is that this particular king of the twoofers (snigger, snigger!) is so bad that he, along with other truthers (snigger singger!), is supporting a convicted terrorist!

How bad is that?

Case proven!

The rhetorical power of the OP, entitled Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist relies on the meme that terrorism , as the current international bogeyman , is the “worst of the worst” and it is typically mad of King Truther Griffin to consider that such a bad person could have been mistakenly convicted.

Being able to assocate the Truther’s preacher directly with a terrorist is, of course, a dream come true, almost as satisfying as a Killer Truther.

So, as well as its factual content, the Original Post’s frames (title and conclusion) define its emotional and , therefore, propagandistic content. It is thus entirely relevant to the OP to explore the way that the “terrorist” meme is being deviously used to manipulate and arouse the pack emotions.

I understand that this kind of rabble rousing is standard operating procedure and may be invisible to many. I think it always deserves highlighting.

[D'rok]

A Brief History of Terrorism by the USA (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/US-Peaceful-Nation.htm)

I can't quite figure out why I'm replying to this. I must be a masochist, but here goes.

An article that includes essentially every American military campaign except for WWI and WWII in a list of acts of "terrorism" can have precisely one purpose - i.e., to shamelessly equivocate the word "terrorism" to the point where it becomes an incoherent catch-all term in a bizarre attempt to justify or minimize the crimes of actual terrorists.

Doesn't swallowing this sort of rhetoric make you at all ashamed of yourself?

[CHF]

Again, personally I think it is Brilliant.

R. Gage was doing it too. It is called finding the gravy train and riding it. The Twoof movement in the west is dying. So go to the home of the terrorists homes and say "you are not guilty, no it was ..." and then get the donations.

ethically repulsive, but economically brilliant

I've always wondered why Dylan and Jason never translated Loose Change into Arabic.

It would sell like hot cakes on the streets of Gaza.

[TexasJack]

What a disgusting human being, I'll bet he would have voted for Hitler fro president.

[funk de fino]

I understand that this kind of rabble rousing is standard operating procedure and may be invisible to many. I think it always deserves highlighting.

Then you should highlight it and stop spamming with off topic claptrap.

[Scott Sommers]

Am I mistaken or, since I joined the forum this summer, have our Truther friends taken a turn for the more desperate? Perhaps I lack the historical perspective, but it appears to me they are increasing moving to the fringe even of the wing of American politics that might accept them. It's no longer just trying to redefine 'patriotism'.

[16.5]

The punchline of the OP is

The underlying message of the OP is that this particular king of the twoofers (snigger, snigger!) is so bad that he, along with other truthers (snigger singger!), is supporting a convicted terrorist!

How bad is that?

Case proven!

The rhetorical power of the OP, entitled Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist relies on the meme that terrorism , as the current international bogeyman , is the “worst of the worst” and it is typically mad of King Truther Griffin to consider that such a bad person could have been mistakenly convicted.

Being able to assocate the Truther’s preacher directly with a terrorist is, of course, a dream come true, almost as satisfying as a Killer Truther.

So, as well as its factual content, the Original Post’s frames (title and conclusion) define its emotional and , therefore, propagandistic content. It is thus entirely relevant to the OP to explore the way that the “terrorist” meme is being deviously used to manipulate and arouse the pack emotions.



Or, just maybe, as the OP clearly points out and you completely ignore, DRG could be freaking lying:

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11.

I understand that this kind of cherry picking and goal post moving is standard operating procedure and is incredibly obvious to everybody. I think it always deserves highlighting.

[MikeW]

In fairness, it seems like the truthers are only doing what we've asked them to do: put their beliefs to a legal test. Personally, I hope they do it more often, not less: people like the lying Dr Griffin need to be exposed so everyone can see exactly what they are.

[R.Mackey]

In fairness, it seems like the truthers are only doing what we've asked them to do: put their beliefs to a legal test. Personally, I hope they do it more often, not less: people like the lying Dr Griffin need to be exposed so everyone can see exactly what they are.

I agree. I've long wondered if any Truthers actually believed their own drivel, simply because if they did, I'd expect their response to be quite a bit different.

Think about it -- if you honestly believed your Government was willing to kill thousands of its own people on a whim, and you were in public trying to expose this fact, what would you do? Stay put? Yak on online forums? Put up posters and hold film festivals in your basement? Publish endless books and shill for donations to fleece the faithful?

Heck no. The smart move would be either to head for the hills, or to stay and fight in court. Anything else either means you're not serious, or there is no threat.

So, this kind of behavior is at least consistent with their claims that they believe this stuff. It does, however, expose just why these beliefs need to be opposed in the first place. Claiming that there is no real terrorism, that al-Qaeda doesn't exist, bin Laden is a CIA puppet, etc. is about as naive as it gets, and would be an extremely dangerous policy position to take. Fortunately, the Truthers prove time and again that they have no influence, and their arguments are so silly they refute themselves, so we don't have much to worry about.

[dudalb]

For a Christian Thelogian, Griffin sures breaks that commandment about "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor" a lot.

[Orphia Nay]

So, this kind of behavior is at least consistent with their claims that they believe this stuff.

Yes, to an extent. Griffin seems to be having a hard time with his convictions, as I pointed out earlier:

"Our best chance of getting an investigation of 9/11 is probably through the court system, perhaps especially the court system of another country. The Mounir case may present a unique opportunity to get the falsity of the official story exposed."

[deep]

I've always wondered why Dylan and Jason never translated Loose Change into Arabic.

It would sell like hot cakes on the streets of Gaza.


Yeah.. as long as they convert it into a flip book.

[TruthersLie]

Yeah.. as long as they convert it into a flip book.

oh boy... now if that isn't a wonderfully racist sentiments...

[A W Smith]

So I guess they will be sampling the DNA from family members of the accused hijackers to prove them innocent? Am I correct? i mean the government cannot falsify the DNA taken from the hijackers to match next of kin without knowing the properties of the family members DNA well in advance, can they? Here's your big chance Twoofers. To exonerate the 19 hijackers.

[stewieg]

As I pointed out on the blog, they claim that the FBI "still" isn't sure who the hijackers are, sourced from a press release from September 27th, 2001.

Just shows what an incredibly dishonest person David Ray Griffin really is.

[twinstead]

Just shows what an incredibly dishonest person David Ray Griffin really is.

Actually it doesn't show, it reinforces. ;)

[stewieg]

Actually it doesn't show, it reinforces. ;)

Good point!

[JihadJane]

Or, just maybe, as the OP clearly points out and you completely ignore, DRG could be freaking lying:

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11.

I understand that this kind of cherry picking and goal post moving is standard operating procedure and is incredibly obvious to everybody. I think it always deserves highlighting.

Perhaps you better pin yourself to your Truther dodger wall, 16.5.


.... so we don't have much to worry about.

Keep spooning out the reassurance because no one seems to be listening to you. Scott.in.taiwan, for example, is scared even to let his children onto the streets because of Truthers.



Am I mistaken or, since I joined the forum this summer, have our Truther friends taken a turn for the more desperate? Perhaps I lack the historical perspective, but it appears to me they are increasing moving to the fringe even of the wing of American politics that might accept them. It's no longer just trying to redefine 'patriotism'.

Perhaps it's honesty rather than perspective that you lack or maybe you just need to better acting skills.

I can't quite figure out why I'm replying to this. I must be a masochist, but here goes.

An article that includes essentially every American military campaign except for WWI and WWII in a list of acts of "terrorism" can have precisely one purpose - i.e., to shamelessly equivocate the word "terrorism" to the point where it becomes an incoherent catch-all term in a bizarre attempt to justify or minimize the crimes of actual terrorists.

Doesn't swallowing this sort of rhetoric make you at all ashamed of yourself?

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be on the receiving end of an "American military campaign"?

(Who's attempting to "justify or minimize the crimes of actual terrorists"?)

[D'rok]

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be on the receiving end of an "American military campaign"?
I imagine it's quite terrifying. Of course, terrorist apologists are unable to distinguish between an adjective and a noun and therefore cry, aha! terrorism! It is extremely juvenile behaviour.

(Who's attempting to "justify or minimize the crimes of actual terrorists"?)You are. In this very thread. And in pretty much every post you make on this forum.

[16.5]

Perhaps you better pin yourself to your Truther dodger wall, 16.5.

(Who's attempting to "justify or minimize the crimes of actual terrorists"?)

Quoting lying scumbag truthers makes me a truther, well ain't that something!

Kinda funny that you did not address the fact that DRG was lying, JJ.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Keep spooning out the reassurance because no one seems to be listening to you. Scott.in.taiwan, for example, is scared even to let his children onto the streets because of Truthers.

In a two month period earlier this spring, 9/11 truthers murdered three police officers and an armed security guard.

[JihadJane]

I imagine it's quite terrifying. Of course, terrorist apologists are unable to distinguish between an adjective and a noun and therefore cry, aha! terrorism! It is extremely juvenile behaviour.

The grammar is irrelevant. War is terrorism (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17498.htm) with a bigger budget. Furthermore, US "military campaigns" frequently employ "actual terrorists" as foot soldiers. Both use violence as a political tool.

You are. In this very thread. And in pretty much every post you make on this forum.

:D You obviously don't read the majority of the posts I make on this forum!


To clarify what you are saying, please quote an example and explain how it justifies or minimizes the crimes of actual terrorists.

Quoting lying scumbag truthers makes me a truther, well ain't that something!

Kinda funny that you did not address the fact that DRG was lying, JJ.

Sorry, you misunderstand. I wasn't calling you a Truther, just suggesting that you pin yourself to your Truther wall for dodging my questions.


In a two month period earlier this spring, 9/11 truthers murdered three police officers and an armed security guard.



I imagine that would have made you very happy though it wasn't exactly murdering children at random on the street, now was it? Please don't frighten poor scott.in.taiwan any further by recklessly impersonating the cheap and irresponsible fear-mongering of tabloid newspapers.

[D'rok]

I imagine it's quite terrifying. Of course, terrorist apologists are unable to distinguish between an adjective and a noun and therefore cry, aha! terrorism! It is extremely juvenile behaviour.
War is terrorism (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17498.htm)
I rest my case.

[LashL]

I rest my case.

Rules Lawyer Kitty finds in favour of D'rok.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111034a06263058ea0.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16266)

[Sam.I.Am]

rules lawyer kitty finds in favour of d'rok.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6531/badkitty.jpg



ftfy...

[JihadJane]

Rules lawyer kitty needs its kitty litter changed. Any volunteers?

[funk de fino]

Rules lawyer kitty needs its kitty litter changed. Any volunteers?

Yawn

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_182444ad1d7c5daf27.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17817)

[16.5]

sorry, you misunderstand. I wasn't calling you a Truther, just suggesting that you pin yourself to your Truther wall for dodging my questions.

I am sorry, I seem to have become distracted by your fellating of convicted terrorists to see that you had asked me a question at some point.

So I paged back through the thread, stopping frequently to shower after reading a truther post.

And I found your questions, which were in "answer" to my question to you.

And I realized that you are a complete troll. Go slurp your Kool Aid, sweetie.

[JihadJane]

I am sorry, I seem to have become distracted by your fellating of convicted terrorists to see that you had asked me a question at some point.

So I paged back through the thread, stopping frequently to shower after reading a truther post.

And I found your questions, which were in "answer" to my question to you.

And I realized that you are a complete troll. Go slurp your Kool Aid, sweetie.


Do you have anything of substance to share?

Answering my questions will, hopefully, answer your question. If not, we can discuss your question further.

[D'rok]

Rules Lawyer Kitty finds in favour of D'rok.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111034a06263058ea0.png

A most learned decision, your honour.

[16.5]

Do you have anything of substance to share?

Answering my questions will, hopefully, answer your question. If not, we can discuss your question further.

I've added all the substance that I am going to share, sweetie.

Hey look, another Mosque bombing.

But Jihad Jane was lecturing us about the United States, If I recall correctly.

Whoops, suicide bomber.

But Jihad, do go on and run from the OP, as always, you have terrorists to service.

[BenBurch]

I say the US Government should charge all these guys as terrorists themselves as they are giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.

[LashL]

Rules lawyer kitty needs its kitty litter changed. Any volunteers?


Pfft. That just goes to show how little you know. Rules Lawyer Kitty is a smart and savvy outdoor cat who makes rational and considered decisions based on facts and evidence. No kitty litter required.

[Mr.D]

War is terrorism (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17498.htm)

Tell us, JihadJane. Is this how you define 'terrorism?' That it is a synonym for war?

If not, please tell us what your definition of terrorism is.

[JihadJane]

Tell us, JihadJane. Is this how you define 'terrorism?' That it is a synonym for war?

If not, please tell us what your definition of terrorism is.

Using terror for political purposes.


I say the US Government should charge all these guys as terrorists themselves as they are giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.


An interesting definition of terrorist!

[JihadJane]

I've added all the substance that I am going to share, sweetie.

Hey look, another Mosque bombing.

But Jihad Jane was lecturing us about the United States, If I recall correctly.

Whoops, suicide bomber.

But Jihad, do go on and run from the OP, as always, you have terrorists to service.



So you aren't going to answer my questions, then?

[16.5]

So you aren't going to answer my questions, then?

Ohhh! Clever retort! Fiendishly so, you are the regular Mohemmed Atta of wit.

You see, and i am sorry if I sound a little bit peevish here, one (such as yourself) usually does not whine about having your questions answered when one (such as yourself) runs away from answering a question in the first instance.

You see, that makes you a hypocrite. Here is another GREAT example of a hypocrite: in a thread about a huge fraud lying in support of a convicted terrorist, someone comes into the thread bitterly complaining about the United States, while at the same time refusing to condemn either the terrorists or the huge lying fraud.

That makes them a hypocrite. I'd like to think that you learned something that you can share with one of your terrorist pals during pillow talk tonight.

[Mr.D]

Using terror for political purposes.


Recursive definition = automatic fail.

[ScottyMate]

This follows logically from the Truthers claims that really was an inside jobby job job. The "official story" used these poor men as scapegoats or gullible patsies, of course they're innocent.
I would love to see how that resonates with the group as a whole. It would force a lot of the part time Twoofs to take a hard look at the actual consequences of what it is they're saying. I could see a schism opening up where you have the different camps divided over how to view the men. The thought of siding with Al-Qaeda might be unpalatable.

[Orphia Nay]

This follows logically from the Truthers claims that really was an inside jobby job job. The "official story" used these poor men as scapegoats or gullible patsies, of course they're innocent.
I would love to see how that resonates with the group as a whole. It would force a lot of the part time Twoofs to take a hard look at the actual consequences of what it is they're saying. I could see a schism opening up where you have the different camps divided over how to view the men. The thought of siding with Al-Qaeda might be unpalatable.

Yes, I think we've seen signs of this in the lack of twoofer support or condemnation of this move in places like here, 9/11 Blogger and the Screw Loose Change Blog.

[JihadJane]

This follows logically from the Truthers claims that really was an inside jobby job job. The "official story" used these poor men as scapegoats or gullible patsies, of course they're innocent.

I would love to see how that resonates with the group as a whole. It would force a lot of the part time Twoofs to take a hard look at the actual consequences of what it is they're saying. I could see a schism opening up where you have the different camps divided over how to view the men. The thought of siding with Al-Qaeda might be unpalatable.

Yes, I think we've seen signs of this in the lack of twoofer support or condemnation of this move in places like here, 9/11 Blogger and the Screw Loose Change Blog.


It’s hard to have a rational exchange with people who push the line that being a patsy makes one automatically innocent and that questioning a conviction is “siding with Al-Qaeda”.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ohhh! Clever retort! Fiendishly so, you are the regular Mohemmed Atta of wit.

You see, and i am sorry if I sound a little bit peevish here, one (such as yourself) usually does not whine about having your questions answered when one (such as yourself) runs away from answering a question in the first instance.

You see, that makes you a hypocrite. Here is another GREAT example of a hypocrite: in a thread about a huge fraud lying in support of a convicted terrorist, someone comes into the thread bitterly complaining about the United States, while at the same time refusing to condemn either the terrorists or the huge lying fraud.

That makes them a hypocrite. I'd like to think that you learned something that you can share with one of your terrorist pals during pillow talk tonight.



Let's have another look at your question, shall we, 16.5?



You asked it in answer to a question I asked Dave Rogers:

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?



Your question (your answer to my question):

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?





Your question and it's apparent assumptions made no sense to me so I asked for clarification:
Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?






Since then you have, bizarrely, mocked the idea of answering questions with questions (you yourself answered my question with a question), apparently as a way of avoiding answering ("dodging") my questions to you, above. Can you answer them now?

[funk de fino]

It's more to the point because it is on topic for the thread and the sub forum.

It doesn't get any easier. You came in and spammed OT again. No-one was foaming at the mouth.

[twinstead]

JJ couldn't you just go over to the politics forum and start a thread about American terrorism? Why derail this one, which of course is NOT about American terrorism, but about the tacit support of Islamic terrorism by certain members of the truth movement?

[16.5]

Let's have another look at your question, shall we, 16.5?



Oh hey, sweetie, why don't you all take a look at the Rules about responding to the OP, and not trying to derail the thread. And that, terrorist snuggler, is why I said "more to the point."

Get it?

You know about how it is not appropriate to take a suicide belt of a completely off topic subject and attempt to avoid the Opening Post by derailing the thread. You know that is wrong don't you?

Now will you please address my question which has everything to do with the opening post?

And if you feel so strongly about your complete derail, please start another thread.

kthxbye

[JihadJane]

Oh hey, sweetie,

What is the point of your juvenile name-calling, 16.5?

why don't you all [JJ: "all"?] take a look at the Rules about responding to the OP, and not trying to derail the thread. And that, terrorist snuggler, is why I said "more to the point."

Get it?

Not really. What was the purpose of your capitalized "YOU"? It implies that it was more to the point for me than anyone else. Why?

Are you able to address my second question?

(Do you know about the rule about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?)

You know about how it is not appropriate to take a suicide belt of a completely off topic subject and attempt to avoid the Opening Post by derailing the thread. You know that is wrong don't you?

Now will you please address my question which has everything to do with the opening post?

Which question?

And if you feel so strongly about your complete derail, please start another thread.

kthxbye




I have already explained why my comments were completely relevant to the OP. The OP's tired, propagandistic message is based on the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side and that miscarriages of justice are somehow impossible when terrorist crimes are involved.

[funk de fino]

I have already explained why my comments were completely relevant to the OP. The OP's tired, propagandistic message is based on the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side and that miscarriages of justice are somehow impossible when terrorist crimes are involved.

Thats a lie. So was the accusation of foaming at the mouth from the OP.

Your comment was an off topic link to a video. No comment at all. You are doing a grand impersonation of a spamming troll.

[16.5]

(Do you know about the rule about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?)

You HAVE to be kidding, right? Now you must be trolling. Here is your attempt to swerve the thread off topic:

"So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?"

Note the bold font, so your own wildly improper attempt to derail the thread contained a grossly improper characterization about orphia nay. So you are a spectacular hypocrite.

And WHEREAS, Given the fact that Jihad Jane refuses to address the OP, and is persisting in her grossly improper attempt to derail the thread,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED That JIHAD JANE is a Terrorist Hugger. Well Done Jane, although that fact has been painfully obvious from the get go to most of us.

It is also resolved and established that your following claim "the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side" Is ridiculous coming from you when you refuse to condemn the Moslem terrorists in the first place, and which was the subject of the OP.

So, this derail is OVER, JJ, and y'all have failed again.

[JihadJane]

You HAVE to be kidding, right? Now you must be trolling. Here is your attempt to swerve the thread off topic:

"So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?"

Note the bold font, so your own wildly improper attempt to derail the thread contained a grossly improper characterization about orphia nay. So you are a spectacular hypocrite.

And WHEREAS, Given the fact that Jihad Jane refuses to address the OP, and is persisting in her grossly improper attempt to derail the thread,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED That JIHAD JANE is a Terrorist Hugger. Well Done Jane, although that fact has been painfully obvious from the get go to most of us.

It is also resolved and established that your following claim "the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side" Is ridiculous coming from you when you refuse to condemn the Moslem terrorists in the first place, and which was the subject of the OP.

So, this derail is OVER, JJ, and y'all have failed again.


I didn't ask you about about my juvenile name-calling. I asked about yours (see tu quoque fallacy, posts 21 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5179324#post5179324)-24 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5179401#post5179401), 30 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5179682#post5179682) and 32 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5179713#post5179713))

Why, Honey, do you call me Sweetie?

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

[16.5]

I didn't ask you about about my juvenile name-calling. Why, Honey, do you call me Sweetie?

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

Well, Porkchop, it seems that we have here is what we call a Motion For Reconsideration of the Unanimously Passed Resolution finding you to be an Invariable Terrorist Hugger.

The objection is based on tu quoque fallacy.

The motion is denied, on the basis of unclean hands: one cannot complain of a tu quoque fallacy where you yourself came barging into this thread posting one hell of a whopper of a tu quoque fallacy.

The proceedings in this thread are concluded, the loser to make and deliver the sandwiches.

JJ, that would be you. I'll take a turkey, swiss and lettuce on marbled rye.

[JihadJane]

Well, Porkchop, it seems that we have here is what we call a Motion For Reconsideration of the Unanimously Passed Resolution finding you to be an Invariable Terrorist Hugger.

The objection is based on tu quoque fallacy.

The motion is denied, on the basis of unclean hands: one cannot complain of a tu quoque fallacy where you yourself came barging into this thread posting one hell of a whopper of a tu quoque fallacy.

The proceedings in this thread are concluded, the loser to make and deliver the sandwiches.

JJ, that would be you. I'll take a turkey, swiss and lettuce on marbled rye.

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

[twinstead]

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

How can one prove a negative? Why don't you just condemn them now, right in this thread? That'll shut them up, huh? Then you can start a thread in POLITICS about American terrorism.