Gravy at Ground Zero

[Free Thinkr]

I disagree bacause faking wmd-evidence,

Faking WMD evidence?

war-mongering and invading a sovereign country not connected to the attacks but implying this nevertheless that they were responsible for 3000
family members death is uncountable times more sick from many
views around the world, including me.

BS. I'm so sick of this "implying they were responsible." Say what you will about the lead-up to the Iraq war, but they never stated that Iraq was involved in 911. And what's the purpose of saying "sovereign" country? What other type is there? That's nothing more than an attempt at claiming that Hussein's rule was legitimate, which I believe is pretty effin' highly debatable (though, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily make the act of deposing his regime right or wise).

This seems to be a misunderstanding - i was
talking about liar in terms of his dead father,
not about the usual MIHOP-lie...

I don't doubt that his father died there. It could be false, but I certainly can't make that claim, because I don't know.

And may i ask who you are?

How do you mean?

By the way,
welcome on board.

Thanks!

 

[Pardalis]

Gravy is the Chuck Norris of debunkers.

He can roundhouse kick you back into reason. Gravy knows his facts.

 

[Oliver]

Faking WMD evidence?

Don´t mind - just another conspiracy...

BS. I'm so sick of this "implying they were responsible." Say what you will about the lead-up to the Iraq war, but they never stated that Iraq was involved in 911. And what's the purpose of saying "sovereign" country? What other type is there? That's nothing more than an attempt at claiming that Hussein's rule was legitimate, which I believe is pretty effin' highly debatable (though, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily make the act of deposing his regime right or wise).

Well, "sovereign" means a accepted, official government - not a
Banana-Rebublic Government. There are 10 more A**hole-dictators
around the world and nobody cares.

9/11 - Iraq:

How do you mean?

Well, you´re new here and sound like a veteran.
Are you new to the issue?

 

[Free Thinkr]

Don´t mind - just another conspiracy...

Well, "sovereign" means a accepted, official government - not a
Banana-Rebublic Government. There are 10 more A**hole-dictators
around the world and nobody cares.

That may be, but I don't think Hussein's regime was accepted in any realistic way; no more than I accept that a mugger take my wallet with a gun to my head.

9/11 - Iraq:

With regards to that: Bush's cabinet members are associated with the PNAC. The PNAC stated way back in '98 that terrorism was a problem, and that the US should take a aggressive stance, in particular in the ME. They believed that changing the very political landscape in the ME was necessary to combat terrorism, and that this could be achieved militarily. Now, in that regard, Iraq is related to terrorism; when they say that Iraq is part of the war on terror, that's what they mean. 9/11 was something of an "I told you so" moment for the PNAC; their belief that terrorism would be a major problem and that we were inadequately prepared to combat it was vindicated. Though it seems that their "solution" has proved every bit as ineffective, sadly.

Well, you´re new here and sound like a veteran.
Are you new to the issue?

No, I've been debating this for some time now, on several forums. Someone from another forum (Sentinal, if you know the name) recently joined a forum I frequent, and foolishly linked to a thread here. All the better, I say: the people here are even better at debunking CS crap than the several of us over there who act as full-time debunkers. When I saw that Mark Roberts frequents this forum, I decided this would be my type of place.

 

[Oliver]

That may be, but I don't think Hussein's regime was accepted in any realistic way; no more than I accept that a mugger take my wallet with a gun to my head.

*lol* Is Bush´s Regime accepted? I guess it must be because
while you´re talking about muggers - he stole your election.

With regards to that: Bush's cabinet members are associated with the PNAC. The PNAC stated way back in '98 that terrorism was a problem, and that the US should take a aggressive stance, in particular in the ME. They believed that changing the very political landscape in the ME was necessary to combat terrorism, and that this could be achieved militarily. Now, in that regard, Iraq is related to terrorism; when they say that Iraq is part of the war on terror, that's what they mean. 9/11 was something of an "I told you so" moment for the PNAC; their belief that terrorism would be a major problem and that we were inadequately prepared to combat it was vindicated. Though it seems that their "solution" has proved every bit as ineffective, sadly.

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes
sense to avoid terrorism.

No, I've been debating this for some time now, on several forums. Someone from another forum (Sentinal, if you know the name) recently joined a forum I frequent, and foolishly linked to a thread here. All the better, I say: the people here are even better at debunking CS crap than the several of us over there who act as full-time debunkers. When I saw that Mark Roberts frequents this forum, I decided this would be my type of place.

Bootlicker!

 

[maccy]

Oliver, if you want to keep discussing this I suggest you start a thread in the politics section.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, if you want to keep discussing this I suggest you start a thread in the politics section.

Huh? We are still talking about political agendas
of >troofers<. What´s the problem?

 

[maccy]

Huh? We are still talking about political agendas
of >troofers<. What´s the problem?

I'd suggest that these comments aren't relevant to this thread:

*lol* Is Bush´s Regime accepted? I guess it must be because
while you´re talking about muggers - he stole your election.

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes
sense to avoid terrorism.

 

[Free Thinkr]

If someone with a brain thinks he makes a friend by
killing half of his family - then the war in iraq makes sense to avoid terrorism.

Well, that US hasn't actually killed that many Iraqis (that's only the case if you're one of those who blames insurgent kills on the US; obviously that wasn't part of the PNAC plan).

 

[Oliver]

I'd suggest that these comments aren't relevant to this thread:

Not to the thread but to the discussion. Are you
one of the apostels?

Just bring it back on topic by discussing the issue.
What do you think are the troofers agendas?

 

[gumboot]

Oliver,

Just my humble opinion as always...

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot

 

[Free Thinkr]

Oliver,

Just my humble opinion as always...

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot

LOL, that about sums it up, I think.

 

[Oliver]

I think you're being a little naive about the truth movement. It seems you're almost trying to justify their actions by the argument of "well if their comments make people question the government it's all good".

I don't agree at all. I think most truthers are utterly ignorant of 9/11, and this ignorance allows them to truely believe the nonsense they are spouting. I believe, given the choice, they would execute the US Administration. I believe, given the choice, they would want to take control THEMSELVES. And we know, from their Forums, how that would end.

Obviously they have no choice in any of the above. But nonetheless. They are sick, violent, disturbed, and stupid individuals. And what they say and do has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever.

-Gumboot

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.

There is a difference between "I´m a nut" and
"I play the nut to fool you".

Off course i wouldn´t like to see these type of
people in powerful political positions - even if i
think that W&co are such nuts.

 

[gumboot]

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.

I didn't say all. I said "most".

And I don't think they're "nuts" (if by nut you mean mentally ill).

I think the percentage of CTers who have actual mental illness issues are very small (altohugh they are probably the more colourful ones).

As I said, I think the vast majority of CTers believe their ideas completely, and do so out of ignorance.

-Gumboot

 

[Alt+F4]

Gravy, are the CTers at ground zero everyday or just on the weekends? I ask because I'm curious if they are targeting New Yorkers who work downtown or tourists on the weekends. Thanks.

 

[Oliver]

I didn't say all. I said "most".

And I don't think they're "nuts" (if by nut you mean mentally ill).

I think the percentage of CTers who have actual mental illness issues are very small (altohugh they are probably the more colourful ones).

As I said, I think the vast majority of CTers believe their ideas completely, and do so out of ignorance.

-Gumboot

Mhmm, after annoying them for the last view
months i guess that it´s 50/50 concerning nuts
and intellectual people.

I don´t know the exact definition of nuts. Is it
"dumb" or "mental ill"? - i would describe "nut"
as "twisted mind" - not serious mental illness.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, are the CTers at ground zero everyday or just on the weekends? I ask because I'm curious if they are targeting New Yorkers who work downtown or tourists on the weekends. Thanks.

They're only there on Saturday afternoons. It's all confused tourists. They waste a lot of money handing out pamphlets then!

 

[Gravy]

And i disagree with you, Andrew - just to tweak
your nose. I think it´s a littlebit naive to think
that there is only one type of troofer. There is no
question about the fact that quite a few are nuts
but not all.

There is a difference between "I´m a nut" and
"I play the nut to fool you".

Off course i wouldn´t like to see these type of
people in powerful political positions - even if i
think that W&co are such nuts.

Oliver, can you think of someone who may be "playing the nut?"

I can't. I'm quite sure that the regulars I deal with are 100% convinced that they are right. And I don't think you can appreciate how aggressively ignorant they are. Many of them are much worse in person than they come across on the internet, and they say much worse things when they think their words aren't going to be in print for all to see.

 

[Scientologist]

Is this you, PDoherty? For what reason - explain. (Oh, Scientology)

Nope, I'm not pdoherty.

I do have a theory about you, Oliver. In your 2400 posts, I bet you have not thought of one original idea. You simply regurgitate what you have heard here and on the Loose Change forum.

You seem to be one of those people who likes to "fit in" intellectually but you seem devoid of independent thought.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and my third cent would be that you suck at being an internet sleuth too.

 

[JamesB]

What a bunch of jerks. The host was mocking the rescue efforts. "Yeah they were getting rid of the evidence by saying they were looking for survivors. What were they looking for, mush?"