• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"?

Scott Sommers said:
This may be true. Maybe Childlike Princess and Jihad Jane are intellectual giants of Truther World.
Click to expand...


No, they consider us to be wackos wasting our time with people who would find an excuse even if the devil himself (Donald Rumsfeld) would confess. Maybe they're correct. You Scott have no data to decide if your influential facebook truther is more or less influential than I am, and if both of us are influential at all. Like you have no data to back up the rest of your pretent social science studies, remember?
 
Last edited:
Scott Sommers said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is sedition.

Very few of the twoofers would apologize for jihadis, if they acknowledge their existance. However, some of the leaders of Da TWOOF are just a different breed of terrorists, themselves.

Some of the key players are actually white nationalists or highgrade conmen.

Two Nazis and a total drongo French Army office got the whole thing rolling more or less by themselves
 
leftysergeant said:
Actually, it is sedition.

Very few of the twoofers would apologize for jihadis, if they acknowledge their existance. However, some of the leaders of Da TWOOF are just a different breed of terrorists, themselves.

Some of the key players are actually white nationalists or highgrade conmen.

Two Nazis and a total drongo French Army office got the whole thing rolling more or less by themselves
Click to expand...


Sedition...good point.
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order...The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power.
Click to expand...

There are more Nazis in 911 Truth than that. And they're increasingly becoming homegrown. Luke Rudkowski has been in touch with Gary Franchi for a long time now. he was a speaker at the 9/11 rally that Luke organized last year. Craig Fitzgerald, who has taken over WAC now that Luke's been kicked out for stealing money, is linked up with a neo-Nazi group that goes by the confusing name.'National Anarchy'. See here

WAC member Bruno Bruhwiler advocates white patriot and freeman on the land ideas. He is currently awaiting trial on charges of terrorism.

These are bad boys. They represent the leadership of 9/11 Truth. Slugs like Dick Gage, Cynthia Mckinney, Jason Bermas, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit all have to go to them now to get any coverage. And they are a bunch of Nazis - and Nazis who steal from each other.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Walter, I am starting to think this is one of those circular arguments where I can never satisfy you. What kind of evidence exactly would get to you conceed? Are you looking for Truthers to join a Jihadist organization? Are you looking for something that would be illegal in the USA? Serious question - what sort of evidence would convince you? What do you want to see that you haven't seen already?
Click to expand...

I have found two examples of jihad apology. In both cases the goal is to let Muslims off the hook for the 9/11 attacks. The first is from this forum.

mehmetin said:
To all members: As a Muslim researcher, I came here to challenge the most Jewish and official story supporters’ forum. After 40 pages and 1594 posts, it appears that none was able to debunk the main conclusions of my work:

- The timeline of the hijacks shows that the hijacks were successive, like one team controlling one plane at a time, starting the next hijack minutes before the precedent impact. Such hijacks could not be made by 4 different teams inside each plane; the team of the next plane can not know the situation of the precedent plane; their action can not be linked to the precedent impact.

- The plane that hit the Pentagon was not a B757. It was smaller with about 95ft wingspan, which is consistent with a B737-200/300/400.

- The twin towers were demolished by radio controlled conventional explosives placed on key positions accessible from the lifts' shafts. That install of the explosives can be made during two nights of week end.

All strong evidences are consistent with these conclusions. And that proves that Muslims are NOT involved in the attack of 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...


The second is from my 9/11 video blog.

"Is Terrorism A Muslim Monopoly?" by Dr Zakir Naik. Recorded in Mumbai, India, on 11th Sept 2006. (Note here that Zakir is using "evidence" from the Truth Movement to exonerate jihadists.)

 
Last edited:
Walter, I'll a little confused by this. Do you mean a Truther has to be a Muslim to be a Jihad apologist? If that's what you mean, then you win.

Do you mean they have to be a no-planer? There's loads of them. Judy Wood, Jammonios from the JREF, WTC Dust, etc, etc. In fact, according to Angus Reid, 6% of Americans believe, "No airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center—the images seen on television were altered".

But then, what do mean by a no-planer? Do you have to believe that all 18 hijackers were framed, as WTC Dust has told me? Or could you just believe that the ones accused of hijacking the planes that crashed at the Pentagon and Shakesville were? That's standard fair among Truthers these days. Everyone of them on the JREF will tell you that. CIT made a video making this claim and all of the 1000+ Truthers who are my friends on Facebook will tell you this.

Do I need to prove to you that Judy Wood thinks no Muslims were involved in 911? Do I need to somehow demonstrate that CIT doesn't believe Muslims hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Pentagon? There is nothing in this guy's claim that hasn't been said by white American 911 Truthers and isn't widely believed by white American Truthers in some form or another.

But I thought all this was pretty obvious. I'm really not sure where you're going anymore, except to say that only a Muslim can be a Jihad apologist. And in that case, I give up.
 
Last edited:
Due to extreme ignorance, 911 truth are unintentional terrorist apologists. Most will mature, and join reality.

The terrorist see truther as failures who refuse to think for themselves. Terrorists don't want apologies, they want credit for killing Americans. The terrorist are proud, 911 truth is evidence free. UBL said he will kill Americans when they have the chance, and 911 truth fails to comprehend the written, and spoken word for over 9 years.

The apology that got my attention. Something like this, ""Only expert pilots could to the maneuvers done on 911"".
The truth to the 911 truth lie. No maneuvers were beyond the beginner pilot, the first time pilot skill set. (the people who made up this apology, this lie, never looked at what was done on 911, they made it up)
 
beachnut said:
Due to extreme ignorance, 911 truth are unintentional terrorist apologists. Most will mature, and join reality.

The terrorist see truther as failures who refuse to think for themselves. Terrorists don't want apologies, they want credit for killing Americans. The terrorist are proud, 911 truth is evidence free. UBL said he will kill Americans when they have the chance, and 911 truth fails to comprehend the written, and spoken word for over 9 years.

The apology that got my attention. Something like this, ""Only expert pilots could to the maneuvers done on 911"".
The truth to the 911 truth lie. No maneuvers were beyond the beginner pilot, the first time pilot skill set. (the people who made up this apology, this lie, never looked at what was done on 911, they made it up)
Click to expand...

Could you substantiate the hilited statement?
 
Scott Sommers said:
OK. You win. There is no link. Go tell your friends you bested them at the JREF.
Click to expand...

The belittling tone of your posts suggests that you don't care about truth one iota.

Can you point to anything anywhere (doesn't have to be a link) that supports beachnut's assertion?
 
JihadJane said:
The belittling tone of your posts suggests that you don't care about truth one iota.

Can you point to anything anywhere (doesn't have to be a link) that supports beachnut's assertion?
Click to expand...

No. I don't care about answering this question on this thread. The point you are addressing is interesting and if there is information about it, I would like to know about it. It's background and makes no difference to what I do or don't believe about 911. But the presence of this point on this thread is accidental and quite unrelated to the OP.

Being a major participant in this thread, I do not want to see it sidelined by an unrelated issue. In fact, all I want is Walter to clarify my questions about what evidence he would accept that 911 Truthers are Jihad apologists.

By all means, seek the truth on this question. But do it on your own threads.
 
Scott Sommers said:
No. I don't care about answering this question on this thread. The point you are addressing is interesting and if there is information about it, I would like to know about it. It's background and makes no difference to what I do or don't believe about 911. But the presence of this point on this thread is accidental and quite unrelated to the OP.

Being a major participant in this thread, I do not want to see it sidelined by an unrelated issue. In fact, all I want is Walter to clarify my questions about what evidence he would accept that 911 Truthers are Jihad apologists.

By all means, seek the truth on this question. But do it on your own threads.
Click to expand...

If that's your position why didn't you admonish beachnut when he inserted his BS into the thread, rather than belittling my perfectly valid response to it?
 
Scott Sommers said:
Being a major participant in this thread, I do not want to see it sidelined by an unrelated issue. In fact, all I want is Walter to clarify my questions about what evidence he would accept that 911 Truthers are Jihad apologists.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear! I seem to have vexed you without meaning to. I can assure you this is not an issue of great importance to me although it seems to be to you. As I stated elsewhere, I pay seldom pay much attention to the TM these days and mainly visit this forum to find videos for my blog.

Part of the problem (if there is one) may have been caused by the strict definition of apologist in the OP.

Walter Ego said:
An apologist is a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution. In which case truthers must believe terrorists did attack the U.S. on 9/11 and are trying to justify such an attack.

But this is precisely, if they are being honest, what they don't believe.
Click to expand...


I also said that jihad apology (the term was coined to my knowledge by Mark Roberts and not by me) is the effect of thruthism. I don't see that most truthers are conscious jihad apologists by the definition above.

Do you see what I'm getting at? To be a jihad apologist you would have to believe that jihadist terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11 and give arguments to defend or justify those attacks. The "inside job" truthers do not believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11.

LIHOP trutherism may be an exception but keep in mind that LIHOP (in its trutherist form) sees the 9/11 terrorists as dupes for the "inside job" carried out by agents of the U.S. government. So LIHOPers are not defending or justifying jihad given the definition above.

A more accurate description of trutherism re: jihad was given by twinstead above.

twinstead said:
Jihad apologists or not, they are all useful idiots to extremists.
Click to expand...

Also by beachnut.

beachnut said:
Due to extreme ignorance, 911 truth are unintentional terrorist apologists.
Click to expand...


In other words (and I've said this before) jihad apology is the effect of trutherism, not its underling motivation.

And, as I've also said, this is of no great importance to me and I'll stop posting on this thread but will be happy to read anything you have to contribute. I don't know about Taiwan, but it's a beautiful Spring day where I'm at and I intend to go out and enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
Do you see what I'm getting at? To be a jihad apologist you would have to believe that jihadist terrorist attacked the United States on 9/11 and give arguments to defend or justify those attacks. The "inside job" truthers do not believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I would state that slightly less emphatically: The "inside job" truthers claim that they do not believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11. I have no doubt that some of them honestly hold that belief. However, I have very little doubt that some do not.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom