Are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"?

[Walter Ego]

Infowars is full of this stuff
Terrorist Who Trained London Bombers Was Working For US Government

Oh, dear, you are forcing me to click on infowars! (You realise you are increasing his ad revenues by directing me there, don't you?)

From the article:

Almost every single major terror plot over the last decade plus blamed on “radical Islam” has had the combined or individual fingerprints of US, British, Canadian and Israeli intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement bodies all over it.

Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.

So, in Jones' view if we in the West are being attacked by terrorists it's because our governments are directing the terrorists to attack us for their own nefarious purposes. Presumably left to their own devices the jihadists would not have attacked us.

I would say here Jones is excusing the terrorists as "dupes." He is not saying the jihadist attacked us on their own and he supports their stated ideological reasons for doing so. In the strict definition I gave above of "apologist," the effect is to excuse (i.e., apologize for) the terrorists, exactly the point I made in the OP.

(Unless you believe Jones is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is hoping we will buy this BS to further his real cause.)

On their websites they post links like this
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/pentagons-secret-killers-get-a-new-leader/

Is this what you mean?

Wired is not a truther publication. The article in my reading is critical of U.S. policy in the "war on terror" which the author believes is actually harming U.S. interests both at home and abroad. I can see how you might believe the writer is "apologizing" for the terrorists but I don't see that. I see him arguing that U.S. actions are possibly creating future terrorists.

 

[alienentity]

Yes. Especially certain 'Muslim researchers' who are trying to blame the Joos. Especially those ones...

 

[Scott Sommers]

Oh, dear, you are forcing me to click on infowars! (You realise you are increasing his ad revenues by directing me there, don't you?)

From the article:




So, in Jones' view if we in the West are being attacked by terrorists it's because our governments are directing the terrorists to attack us for their own nefarious purposes. Presumably left to their own devices the jihadists would not have attacked us.

I would say here Jones is excusing the terrorists as "dupes." He is not saying the jihadist attacked us on their own and he supports their stated ideological reasons for doing so. In the strict definition I gave above of "apologist," the effect is to excuse (i.e., apologize for) the terrorists, exactly the point I made in the OP.

(Unless you believe Jones is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is hoping we will buy this BS to further his real cause.)



Wired is not a truther publication. The article in my reading is critical of U.S. policy in the "war on terror" which the author believes is actually harming U.S. interests both at home and abroad. I can see how you might believe the writer is "apologizing" for the terrorists but I don't see that. I see him arguing that U.S. actions are possibly creating future terrorists.

Mr. Jones has a name. His name is Harry, and that's his real name. Let's call him that.

Harry is saying that operatives of the NWO government, whether knowingly or not, carried out directives to do bad things to Western states. In fact, Harry is not a very well-infformed guy. He has no coherent picture of the world. He believes there is an all-powerful NWO government that he suspects are demonic and powered by some relationship with Satan. He can not describe things in any way that is not linked to saying 'the NWO did it'.

Harry is not a no-planer. He believes there were hijackers on the planes that attacked the WTC buildings and that they were Muslims. The towers collapsed because bad people filled them with some dangerous stuff, not because there were uncontrolable fires. He believes a cruise missle hit the Pentagon and United 93 was brought down by US planes. This would be pretty standard outside the 911 world that JREF monitors.

He believes that Muslims were manipulated into doing this. This can be understood as a reasonable response to control or manipaultion by the NWO government. He is not just apologizing for them,

NWO is making it's power play to take over and control the entire muslim world! muslims are the LAST people resisting NWO agenda and they are as a worldwide entity being brought under control right before your eyes under the false pretense of these "revoloutions"... in which NWO thugs will be put into power in each nation.

.
He is claiming their solidarity in a struggle against their secret control.

Wired is not a Truther publication, nor is the article related to conspiracy theory. I did get there through a link from a Truther site. Just as Gordon Brown did say that Saddam Hussein was in the way of A New World Order, the links presence on sites that advocate this other trash makes them into different things than their writers intended.

 

[Walter Ego]

Mr. Jones has a name. His name is Harry, and that's his real name. Let's call him that.

Okay, whatever. Can you source that quote from "Harry"? It's not in the infowars article you linked earlier. But is "Harry's" goal in that quote jihad apology and trutherism just the cynical ploy for that goal? I'm still waiting for the smoking gun.

Wired is not a Truther publication, nor is the article related to conspiracy theory. I did get there through a link from a Truther site. Just as Gordon Brown did say that Saddam Hussein was in the way of A New World Order, the links presence on sites that advocate this other trash makes them into different things than their writers intended.

I'm not sure what your point is here. That truthers are dishonest? We already know that.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would say jihad apology is not the truthers goal or motivation but rather their effect.

Depends which truther you are talking about.

Our "Muslim researcher" vistor from Facebook is absolutely a jihadist apologist while many of the US/Canadian wing doesn't believe "jihad" exists.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Okay, whatever. Can you source that quote from "Harry"? It's not in the infowars article you linked earlier. But is "Harry's" goal in that quote jihad apology and trutherism just the cynical ploy for that goal? I'm still waiting for the smoking gun.



I'm not sure what your point is here. That truthers are dishonest? We already know that.

These are Facebook posts from personal accounts. If you want to see them, you got do face. That's a dare, and I'm calling you chicken.

No thanks. I prefer my truthers at a slight remove.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Depends which truther you are talking about.

Our "Muslim researcher" vistor from Facebook is absolutely a jihadist apologist while many of the US/Canadian wing doesn't believe "jihad" exists.

But of course they believe there are Jihadists. They just don't believe that the 911 attacks were part of it. Of course there are suicide bomb attacks on cafes in Israel. Of course there are suicide attacks on US military personal in Iraq. What these guys don't believe is that the big attacks - 717 and 911 - can be counted as as part of this Jihad. They may not have thought this far, so ask them. Do they really think it's perfectly safe in the Middle East and that there's no such thing as a suicide bomber? Of course not. They just don't accept the religiously based explanations for attacks that have lead to an increase in the Western security state.

Truthers will tell you that officials in the US government murder citizens. They have named some of these people and called them traitors. They will tell you the current system can not produce justice for this kind of criminal. They will tell you that it must be replaced with a radically different type of political and economic organization and that this transformation will result in the deaths of many people.

They will tell you there is no increased danger traveling in the world and that the US is not in any danger of being attacked by Muslim fanatics. They will tell you this is a lie and that lie has to be stopped. They will tell you the only way to stop this is to completely replace the system of government that now exists, along with almost all the people in it. Many of them call this a revolution and talk about the role of gun rights and preparation for an armed conflict.

I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like treason.

 

[Dog Town]

All quibbling aside.
The answer to the question is YES!

 

[angrysoba]

So you are saying truthers are, consciously or unconsciously, insincere? And they, at their deepest level, don't believe their BS and would acknowledge it is BS if they were honest?

I would agree that they live in a fantasy world and mistake this self-created world for reality. Why they do so cannot be so easily answered, however.

Well, I think there is a fairly large sub-set of Truthers who just live with an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance. They espouse XYZ but they simply don't live that way. They would go to the police if their computer was stolen (even if it contained all their top secret research), for example, and are usually generally pretty relaxed given their role in blowing the whistle on their government/Israel/the New World Order.

Maybe late at night a few more of them become expert Truth seekers but by and large they're just fantasists and probably know it.

This is just what comes across from talking to them.

 

[twinstead]

The majority of truthers are simply useful idiots for jihad, IMHO.

 

[Walter Ego]

These are Facebook posts from personal accounts. If you want to see them, you got do face. That's a dare, and I'm calling you chicken.

There has been some confusion here so let's backtrack a little. I asked you to provide some sourced quotes showing that truthers are jihad apologists.

You responded (in post #17 above) with a link to an infowars article which I did read. I then pulled a quote from the article and commented on it (post #21). The Jones I was referring to was Alex Jones. This is quite clear if you reread post #21 where I specifically referenced infowars. You also in post #17 gave an unsourced quote from Facebook which was apparently by the Harry Jones you are talking about and now I'm too "chicken" to read a page you don't even link to.

This would be like telling someone they are "afraid" to read a book which is available at a public library and then not even telling them the title or even the call number of the book. This is somewhat perplexing as I believe you're an academic and should know about the need for citations. And now you're saying I'm too cowardly to read what you fail to cite.

 

[Scott Sommers]

There has been some confusion here so let's backtrack a little. I asked you to provide some sourced quotes showing that truthers are jihad apologists.

You responded (in post #17 above) with a link to an infowars article which I did read. I then pulled a quote from the article and commented on it (post #21). The Jones I was referring to was Alex Jones. This is quite clear if you reread post #21 where I specifically referenced infowars. You also in post #17 gave an unsourced quote from Facebook which was apparently by the Harry Jones you are talking about and now I'm too "chicken" to read a page you don't even link to.

This would be like telling someone they are "afraid" to read a book which is available at a public library and then not even telling them the title or even the call number of the book. This is somewhat perplexing as I believe you're an academic and should know about the need for citations. And now you're saying I'm too cowardly to read what you fail to cite.

I should apologize. I did not read your posts carefully enough. I will try to answer your questions more carefully.

A better response would have been that I don't have any because I don't read published Truther material. I have found that published Truther material does not adequately capture what's going on among people willing to endorse Truter-type-stuff. You will not be able to find evidence for what you want without talking directing to these people. I am not suggesting their treason is a conspiracy, because they will talk about it to you openly if you ask them. The treasonous people are generally not involved in the kind of 911-conspiracy-type-stuff monitored by JREF members who no longer use websites to communicate.

I can introduce you to many of these people. I suspect this is not acceptable to you because you will have to Facebook friend them or listen to their webcasts. This is probably the only way. If this is not acceptable to you, then we are in a bind. There are clearly many Truthers who combine their Truthing with endorsement of the violent overthrow of the state. They are willing to talk about it openly. You can talk to them if you want. I can tell you where to go. And if you're not willing to go there, I can understand how you continue with the mistaken idea that treason is not widespread among Truthers.

That's the answer to your question.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Here let me post from another discussion of this topic that is just now happening on Facebook. I hope you're not going to tell me that because it's not published on the Net, it doesn't count. My point in the post above is that Truthers openly talk about about how Muslims kill people, just not on 911 and how the only fix to this is something we all agree is treason. They just don't do it on websites.

...my question wasn't difficult, here it is again: Did any muslims perpetrate any terrorist attacks in the past 20 years in the West?
11 hours ago · Like
I will have to say yes but......... they were sting operations!
11 hours ago · Like
Jesuits!
11 hours ago · Like
~ I'm stumped. Where have any Muslims been proven to have perpetrated terrorist attacks in the West during the past 20 years?

‎"I don't understand. You say taht the terrorist acts that you attribute to muslims were sting operations? What does that mean?"

Just look at the last two months Head........ Muslims have all been framed on 3 or 4 different terrorists stings that were created by the FBI!

Have a look:
FBI Entraps Another Useful “Homegrown” Idiot to Push the Fake War On Terror
http://www.infowars.com/fbi-entraps-another-useful-homegrown-idiot-to-push-the-fake-war-on-terror/

Twice in two weeks the FBI thwarts their own Terror plan!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/bs-md-bomb-plot-arrest-20101208,0,6333998.story

"PNAC is a Zionists document." Indeed, I was just calling them out too, not separating them!

,

there were no muslins involved in the planning or execution of 911. Atta and Moussoui were impersonated by Mossad agents at there flight schools - they couldn't even speak their native language. And the rest were just stolen passports that Mossad planted as evidence. Hence half the high jackers being interviewed after 911.

Cheney is a Zionist prostitute.
Every middle east country with a 'dictator' is supported and controlled thru Israeli/American influence. The recent events in Egypt should make this clear.
Yes, ISI is infiltrated and influenced by Mossad/CIA. Duh.

PNAC is a Zionist document. Written out of Israel and signed by Zionists. Neo cons are a fancy term for Zionist prostitues. I don't know why you are seperated these groups for Zionism.

Zionism connection runs WAY deeper then the Mossad agents participating in the events in New York that day.

Nine - Israel tried to sink an American war ship and killed 34 sailors in the process to ignite a War on their neighbours in the Middle East. Plain as day.

I have to get credit to the system that controls us. They have done a great job in making sure people don't know what Zionism is. I tried to explain some of it briefly up top but I doesn't matter. People can't even get it through their head that Zionists can be non jews.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

You're all so far off.....

You should be greatful for the truthers. No one can offer any evidence that "trutherism" has effected any islamic jihad AQ. You yourselves state over and over how many years of failure the 9/11 truth movement has to show for itself.

Look at it this way. What if the actions of Truthers discovered that there was, actually, an inside job? There would be major global consequences.

Truthers are like guns; its better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them. Like a 21st Century social peer-review. The downside, as you see it, is that certain people are incapable of objectivity, and as a result puport fictional theories.

No evidence can be given which supports Truthers as 'allied' to islamic terrorism in any way.

 

[Scott Sommers]

You're all so far off.....

You should be greatful for the truthers. No one can offer any evidence that "trutherism" has effected any islamic jihad AQ. You yourselves state over and over how many years of failure the 9/11 truth movement has to show for itself.

Look at it this way. What if the actions of Truthers discovered that there was, actually, an inside job? There would be major global consequences.

Truthers are like guns; its better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them. Like a 21st Century social peer-review. The downside, as you see it, is that certain people are incapable of objectivity, and as a result puport fictional theories.

No evidence can be given which supports Truthers as 'allied' to islamic terrorism in any way.

But that's not the issue as I see. You don't have to be talking with Osama to be talking treasonous talk. Truthers advocate the violent overthrow of the state. End of story. Whether that's criminal treason, I can't say. It's probably not, or Truthers would be going to jail. But it is treason in any common usage of the word.

 

[Puppycow]

Are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"?

Yes. In the same sense that holocaust deniers are Nazi apologists.

And yes, it is an effect. Whether it is a goal or not, who knows?

 

[angrysoba]

Look at it this way. What if the actions of Truthers discovered that there was, actually, an inside job? There would be major global consequences.

Yes, and the same would be true if you discovered a cure for cancer.

So far you've not achieved either.

Truthers are like guns; its better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them.

They're more like guns made out of chocolate. Useless.

No evidence can be given which supports Truthers as 'allied' to islamic terrorism in any way.

I once asked Richard Gage if AE9/11 Truth would support Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at his trial. Gage hemmed and hawed and lamely offered that KSM might have been part of it. I pointed out that if Gage is right surely that would be very considerable circumstantial evidence for his innocence and that it would surely be hypocritical to go round with that quote of Martin Luther King that "there are times when silence is betrayal" if they then sat back and watched an innocent man go down for mass murder. Gage then suggested that maybe there are groups that AE9/11Truth are working with to have him defended in a trial.

Of course, at other times Gage has said that no Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and still other times when he's said that the sinking of the Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the USS Maine (I think) were also all false flags and that at every war the US has been involved with was begun with a false flag.

 

[Dog Town]

You're all so far off.....


Look at it this way. What if the actions of Truthers discovered that there was, actually, an inside job? There would be major global consequences.

Pathetic!
So with no evidence, Twoofers accuse innocents (thousands at the very least) of mass murder! All the while making threats of how to punish. NICE!
Who's far off?

Answer:
YOU!

 

[twinstead]

You're all so far off.....

You should be greatful for the truthers. No one can offer any evidence that "trutherism" has effected any islamic jihad AQ. You yourselves state over and over how many years of failure the 9/11 truth movement has to show for itself.

Look at it this way. What if the actions of Truthers discovered that there was, actually, an inside job? There would be major global consequences.

Truthers are like guns; its better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them. Like a 21st Century social peer-review. The downside, as you see it, is that certain people are incapable of objectivity, and as a result puport fictional theories.

No evidence can be given which supports Truthers as 'allied' to islamic terrorism in any way.

We don't need "truthers". If there ever was a situation like a 9-11 inside job we would need people with the balls that the Egyptian people or the Burmese people or the Chinese protesters in Tienanmen Square had. We would need people ready to lay down their very lives to defend their beliefs, not a bunch of angry white young men in their mother's basements looking at grainy YouTube videos. The internet is a means to organize protests like that, not a medium to debate the subject.

If 9-11 truly was an inside job, and if the evidence to support it was truly as strong as truthers claim it is, almost a decade after the fact SOMETHING would have happened. Men and women of character would have taken the torch and we would have massive demonstrations in the streets. Truthers: if your evidence is as good as you think then GET OUT INTO THE STREETS AND INTO THE COURTROOMS and get it done!

 

[George 152]

There is no other explanation possible