Challenge to William Rodriguez

Undesired Walrus said:
Unfortunatly, the truthers are jumping on the back of this, proving my point that they will use William's position to get one-up on the "evil JREF's".



Um.. racist wars?

I am somewhat worrying that truthers do not actually know what 'racist' means, and whether they are aware that their main theory is born on clear racism against arabs.

In other news..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80690
Click to expand...

I was actually at the point of quoting this myself. Since I am banned from the LCF, I will post my reply here to 8bitagent.

I am neither racist, nor do I support the war inside Iraq. I know that the intel behind the WMD was wrong and not accurate and have accepted this. This wrong Intel was put forward to support this war, but it was not only put forward by the US, many other countries supported it. It was wrong; Iraq did not have any WMD.

I do not think that Saddam was behind 911, as it has been proven he was not. I believe a group of individuals who subscribed to the ideology of Al Qaeda was behind the 911 attacks. Equally so I do not believe that the US government was behind the attacks, although they were warned and warned a possible attack was coming.

Nor am I an idiot, unlike yourself I have read many historical books and literature that backs my beliefs. I fully understand the dire instability that the US led actions have had in the Middle East and I fully understand the anti America/ Western feeling it as further fueled. This feeling has been there for a long time, my friend, it has be raging below the surface for decades, it will not go away by buying into silly conspiracies about bombs, missiles and goodness knows what. It needs to be addressed but you will not address it because you refuse to even acknowledge it. These conspiracies, every single one of them trivialize the very real cultural differences that exists between the west and the Middle East and further more you don’t even acknowledge the existence of such radicalized ideology as Al Qaeda. Simply burying your head in the sand, calling your critics idiots and carry on regardless is the motto.

You would be better served actually trying to understand and asking yourself the biggest question of all, why? Why do they hate us so much? You dare not ask this question and you simply cringe at the answer. For the answer is far more horrific that anything you could dream up. The answer is actually staring you in the face, but of course this is far too easy.

Nor do I like to see people who tried to help on that dreadful day suffering any form of respiratory disease. They have my full sympathy.

Equally so I would like to think that you can appreciate, although I very much doubt it that people who post here have their own opinions and do not individually represent everybody,there in no single voice that represents the opinion of this entire forum.

I doubt it will sink in but hey, who knows.

Welcome to the forum Mr. Rodriguez, I for one would be very interested in what you have to say. It would be pleasure to hear your story and as such I warmly welcome you to this forum.
 
Last edited:
WE, the truthers, are ANTI WAR. ANTI RACIST. WE DONT LIKE RACIST WARS FOR OIL AND DOMINATION. WE DONT LIKE SEEING 9/11 HEROES DYING OF RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. Cant they get that through their thick skulls?
Click to expand...

'truthers' really are a mass of contradictions.

They are 'anti war' and yet, on the evidence of the (too) many threads over at LCF since the VT tragedy, they are perfectly happy to be paying their money over to weapons manufacturers and they can maintain their fetish for guns and ammo.

They are 'anti racist' but all too often justify their 911 fantasy by claiming that 'arabs in caves' didn't have the wherewithall to carry out such an audacious attack on a (white) western country. And I won't mention the pervading anti-semitism of the 'truth' movement.

They prefer to think of the ME wars as being about Oil and 'domination' but they carefully refrain from mentioning DEMOCRACY

And quite how standing up and making a fool of yourself with 911 CT nonsense is going to help those effected by the aftermath of the NYC attack is beyond me. I think those who have fallen ill since 9/11 would be better off without 911 fantasists using them.
 
WildCat said:
We were mean to him, so the TRUTH behind the deaths of 3,000 innocent people in the US and untold thousasnds in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to wait until his fragile emotional state can be mended.
Click to expand...

Methinks he has become so used to people fawning over him that its a shock when he is asked any pertinent questions.
There were many heroes that day that never got out of those buildings,and others that actually survived havent shown this self preening mentality.
Surely it is more important that we get the facts straight on the events of that day than whether William feels "offended" by the manner the debate was announced?
 
I'm confused... racist war?

First I was assured the invasion of Iraq was all about the greedy USA securing oil. Then I was told it was part of a long-term strategic plan called PNAC that would establish (maintain?) the USA as the world's undisputed superpower. Then I got told it was actually a convoluted plan to destabilise and undermine the authority of the USA, making it ripe for invasion by UN armies.

Now apparently, it appears Iraq was invaded so that the USA could slaughter a whole heap of Arabs.

Pardon my boldness, but if this was truly the plan from the beginning, you would think the coalition would be a bit more inclined to slaughter the populace. I mean, Iraq has a population of 26 million, and so far in 4 years the coalition has only managed to exterminate a meager couple of hundred thousand (at most). That works out at less than one civilian per deployed soldier. Pathetic.

-Gumboot
 
Cutting the Gordian Knot

Often it's very hard to separate genuine feeling from bluster and self-serving spin. One sentiment has crystallized here out of all the commotion: members of the rationalist community sincerely want to hear William Rodriguez tell his story. It seems to me that there are no real obstacles.

Negotiations between me and Rodriguez have reached an impasse. Searching for common ground, I have discovered, at least, a common word. My original invitation was a "cordial" one (see the post that opens this thread); Rodriguez remarks that he met Mark Roberts at Ground Zero and found him "cordial." What I infer from all of this is that we both regard cordiality as a good thing.

I must admit that my attitude toward Rodriguez has been colored by Mike Newman's recounting of the difficulties NIST experienced in obtaining his cooperation. Rodriguez's "I-agreed-to-appear-before-I-decided-not-to" speech struck me as transparently disingenuous. I have, on a different thread, referred to him as a self-promoting phony. The repetition of the pronoun "I" identifies the problem and suggests a simple solution: all we need to do is get rid of me.

I propose that William Rodriguez appear on 'Hardfire' with Mark as the host. I won't be anywhere in sight.

This arrangement must be satisfactory to all sides. Mark is perfectly qualified to conduct the interview and Rodriguez can hardly turn down the opportunity without making himself look completely ridiculous.

How does this sound?
 
pomeroo said:
Often it's very hard to separate genuine feeling from bluster and self-serving spin. One sentiment has crystallized here out of all the commotion: members of the rationalist community sincerely want to hear William Rodriguez tell his story. It seems to me that there are no real obstacles.

Negotiations between me and Rodriguez have reached an impasse. Searching for common ground, I have discovered, at least, a common word. My original invitation was a "cordial" one (see the post that opens this thread); Rodriguez remarks that he met Mark Roberts at Ground Zero and found him "cordial." What I infer from all of this is that we both regard cordiality as a good thing.

I must admit that my attitude toward Rodriguez has been colored by Mike Newman's recounting of the difficulties NIST experienced in obtaining his cooperation. Rodriguez's "I-agreed-to-appear-before-I-decided-not-to" speech struck me as transparently disingenuous. I have, on a different thread, referred to him as a self-promoting phony. The repetition of the pronoun "I" identifies the problem and suggests a simple solution: all we need to do is get rid of me.

I propose that William Rodriguez appear on 'Hardfire' with Mark as the host. I won't be anywhere in sight.

This arrangement must be satisfactory to all sides. Mark is perfectly qualified to conduct the interview and Rodriguez can hardly turn down the opportunity without making himself look completely ridiculous.

How does this sound?
Click to expand...

Heck, why don't we just get Mark his own show?:)
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Unfortunatly, the truthers are jumping on the back of this, proving my point that they will use William's position to get one-up on the "evil JREF's".



Um.. racist wars?

I am somewhat worrying that truthers do not actually know what 'racist' means, and whether they are aware that their main theory is born on clear racism against arabs.

In other news.. just incase they forget..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80690
Click to expand...

There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of stupid people asking questions.
 
pomeroo said:
That is an example of deliciously dry wit.
Click to expand...

Typical twoofer if you ask me. Like I said before I don't care how heroic he was, it does not excuse someone from blaming innocent people of murder and directing attention away from the real threat.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of stupid people asking questions.
Click to expand...

cluepf0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom