Ed Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist

[Orphia Nay]

This follows logically from the Truthers claims that really was an inside jobby job job. The "official story" used these poor men as scapegoats or gullible patsies, of course they're innocent.
I would love to see how that resonates with the group as a whole. It would force a lot of the part time Twoofs to take a hard look at the actual consequences of what it is they're saying. I could see a schism opening up where you have the different camps divided over how to view the men. The thought of siding with Al-Qaeda might be unpalatable.

Yes, I think we've seen signs of this in the lack of twoofer support or condemnation of this move in places like here, 9/11 Blogger and the Screw Loose Change Blog.

 

[JihadJane]

This follows logically from the Truthers claims that really was an inside jobby job job. The "official story" used these poor men as scapegoats or gullible patsies, of course they're innocent.

I would love to see how that resonates with the group as a whole. It would force a lot of the part time Twoofs to take a hard look at the actual consequences of what it is they're saying. I could see a schism opening up where you have the different camps divided over how to view the men. The thought of siding with Al-Qaeda might be unpalatable.

Yes, I think we've seen signs of this in the lack of twoofer support or condemnation of this move in places like here, 9/11 Blogger and the Screw Loose Change Blog.

It’s hard to have a rational exchange with people who push the line that being a patsy makes one automatically innocent and that questioning a conviction is “siding with Al-Qaeda”.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ohhh! Clever retort! Fiendishly so, you are the regular Mohemmed Atta of wit.

You see, and i am sorry if I sound a little bit peevish here, one (such as yourself) usually does not whine about having your questions answered when one (such as yourself) runs away from answering a question in the first instance.

You see, that makes you a hypocrite. Here is another GREAT example of a hypocrite: in a thread about a huge fraud lying in support of a convicted terrorist, someone comes into the thread bitterly complaining about the United States, while at the same time refusing to condemn either the terrorists or the huge lying fraud.

That makes them a hypocrite. I'd like to think that you learned something that you can share with one of your terrorist pals during pillow talk tonight.

Let's have another look at your question, shall we, 16.5?



You asked it in answer to a question I asked Dave Rogers:

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Your question (your answer to my question):

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?

Your question and it's apparent assumptions made no sense to me so I asked for clarification:

Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?

Since then you have, bizarrely, mocked the idea of answering questions with questions (you yourself answered my question with a question), apparently as a way of avoiding answering ("dodging") my questions to you, above. Can you answer them now?

 

[funk de fino]

It's more to the point because it is on topic for the thread and the sub forum.

It doesn't get any easier. You came in and spammed OT again. No-one was foaming at the mouth.

 

[twinstead]

JJ couldn't you just go over to the politics forum and start a thread about American terrorism? Why derail this one, which of course is NOT about American terrorism, but about the tacit support of Islamic terrorism by certain members of the truth movement?

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's have another look at your question, shall we, 16.5?

Oh hey, sweetie, why don't you all take a look at the Rules about responding to the OP, and not trying to derail the thread. And that, terrorist snuggler, is why I said "more to the point."

Get it?

You know about how it is not appropriate to take a suicide belt of a completely off topic subject and attempt to avoid the Opening Post by derailing the thread. You know that is wrong don't you?

Now will you please address my question which has everything to do with the opening post?

And if you feel so strongly about your complete derail, please start another thread.

kthxbye

 

[JihadJane]

Oh hey, sweetie,

What is the point of your juvenile name-calling, 16.5?

why don't you all [JJ: "all"?] take a look at the Rules about responding to the OP, and not trying to derail the thread. And that, terrorist snuggler, is why I said "more to the point."

Get it?

Not really. What was the purpose of your capitalized "YOU"? It implies that it was more to the point for me than anyone else. Why?

Are you able to address my second question?

(Do you know about the rule about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?)

You know about how it is not appropriate to take a suicide belt of a completely off topic subject and attempt to avoid the Opening Post by derailing the thread. You know that is wrong don't you?

Now will you please address my question which has everything to do with the opening post?

Which question?

And if you feel so strongly about your complete derail, please start another thread.

kthxbye

I have already explained why my comments were completely relevant to the OP. The OP's tired, propagandistic message is based on the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side and that miscarriages of justice are somehow impossible when terrorist crimes are involved.

 

[funk de fino]

I have already explained why my comments were completely relevant to the OP. The OP's tired, propagandistic message is based on the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side and that miscarriages of justice are somehow impossible when terrorist crimes are involved.

Thats a lie. So was the accusation of foaming at the mouth from the OP.

Your comment was an off topic link to a video. No comment at all. You are doing a grand impersonation of a spamming troll.

 

[The Big Dog]

(Do you know about the rule about attacking the argument rather than the arguer?)

You HAVE to be kidding, right? Now you must be trolling. Here is your attempt to swerve the thread off topic:

"So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?"

Note the bold font, so your own wildly improper attempt to derail the thread contained a grossly improper characterization about orphia nay. So you are a spectacular hypocrite.

And WHEREAS, Given the fact that Jihad Jane refuses to address the OP, and is persisting in her grossly improper attempt to derail the thread,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED That JIHAD JANE is a Terrorist Hugger. Well Done Jane, although that fact has been painfully obvious from the get go to most of us.

It is also resolved and established that your following claim "the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side" Is ridiculous coming from you when you refuse to condemn the Moslem terrorists in the first place, and which was the subject of the OP.

So, this derail is OVER, JJ, and y'all have failed again.

 

[JihadJane]

You HAVE to be kidding, right? Now you must be trolling. Here is your attempt to swerve the thread off topic:

"So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?"

Note the bold font, so your own wildly improper attempt to derail the thread contained a grossly improper characterization about orphia nay. So you are a spectacular hypocrite.

And WHEREAS, Given the fact that Jihad Jane refuses to address the OP, and is persisting in her grossly improper attempt to derail the thread,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED That JIHAD JANE is a Terrorist Hugger. Well Done Jane, although that fact has been painfully obvious from the get go to most of us.

It is also resolved and established that your following claim "the false assumption that the only terrorists worthy are condemnation are those on the "other" side" Is ridiculous coming from you when you refuse to condemn the Moslem terrorists in the first place, and which was the subject of the OP.

So, this derail is OVER, JJ, and y'all have failed again.

I didn't ask you about about my juvenile name-calling. I asked about yours (see tu quoque fallacy, posts 21-24, 30 and 32)

Why, Honey, do you call me Sweetie?

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't ask you about about my juvenile name-calling. Why, Honey, do you call me Sweetie?

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

Well, Porkchop, it seems that we have here is what we call a Motion For Reconsideration of the Unanimously Passed Resolution finding you to be an Invariable Terrorist Hugger.

The objection is based on tu quoque fallacy.

The motion is denied, on the basis of unclean hands: one cannot complain of a tu quoque fallacy where you yourself came barging into this thread posting one hell of a whopper of a tu quoque fallacy.

The proceedings in this thread are concluded, the loser to make and deliver the sandwiches.

JJ, that would be you. I'll take a turkey, swiss and lettuce on marbled rye.

 

[JihadJane]

Well, Porkchop, it seems that we have here is what we call a Motion For Reconsideration of the Unanimously Passed Resolution finding you to be an Invariable Terrorist Hugger.

The objection is based on tu quoque fallacy.

The motion is denied, on the basis of unclean hands: one cannot complain of a tu quoque fallacy where you yourself came barging into this thread posting one hell of a whopper of a tu quoque fallacy.

The proceedings in this thread are concluded, the loser to make and deliver the sandwiches.

JJ, that would be you. I'll take a turkey, swiss and lettuce on marbled rye.

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

 

[twinstead]

Where have I refused "to condemn the Moslem terrorists"?

How can one prove a negative? Why don't you just condemn them now, right in this thread? That'll shut them up, huh? Then you can start a thread in POLITICS about American terrorism.