Ed Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist

[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

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'.

 

[The Big Dog]

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]

Terrorist apologists. nothing more.

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.