Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Protest Warriors to Confront 9-11 Deniers at Ground Zero

I'm not sure whether this is a good development or not. The Protest Warriors are a group of counter-protestors; the problem from our standpoint is that they are overly identified with conservative countering of anti-war protests. As you can see, they may not have a clear image of their target:

Are we going to let that happen? Are we going to let Liberal, America hating, Communist, Islamo Facist scum attack 9/11 familes who've endured enough already, while also using the sad occasion to make millions of dollars?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, scum yes, America hating probably; the rest is pretty wildly off target. I don't want to imply that the Protest Warrior folks are violent or "in your face", because that's not their MO. But this does up the ante and I would expect them to be out in force.

I am going to see who I can contact that is involved with PW to see if I can get them to tone down the rhetoric and understand what is proposed by the Deniers for the fifth anniversary.

Stay Tuned....

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Zach! As you can see, we're all impressed with the marvelous work you've put into your site!
 
I am going to see who I can contact that is involved with PW to see if I can get them to tone down the rhetoric and understand what is proposed by the Deniers for the fifth anniversary.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't really do that. What Protest Warriors do is bring out a sign and simply merge with the marchers. They don't verbally attack or assault anyone. That's what their opposition does at their presense.

And I will be honest, if that does happen, it would expose the 9/11 Deniers as what I thought all along; a bunch of violent people who have some sort of personal vendetta against Bush.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Yeah, Ed's been a Denier for several years now. Anybody remember his dad, the character actor? Looks nothing like Junior and must have been 50 when the son was born (close: Wikipedia says 48).
Click to expand...
Wow, I had no idea. You think you know someone who lies for a living...
 
MarkyX said:
No, I wouldn't really do that. What Protest Warriors do is bring out a sign and simply merge with the marchers. They don't verbally attack or assault anyone. That's what their opposition does at their presense.

And I will be honest, if that does happen, it would expose the 9/11 Deniers as what I thought all along; a bunch of violent people who have some sort of personal vendetta against Bush.
Click to expand...

It may work out fine; my only concern is that most people when dealing with the Deniers at first have a very hard time controlling their temper--see some of the folks in Abby's video for a good example. This is not the same thing as countering anti-war protestors.
 
It looks to me sitting here half a world away that there will definitely be a lot of angry people at GZ on the day.
I hope not but I can see it getting very ugly.
I've seen some of the stupid things troothers have been saying on the LC forum and I just hope they are all talk.
So any way good luck with it all and be careful.
 
It may work out fine; my only concern is that most people when dealing with the Deniers at first have a very hard time controlling their temper--see some of the folks in Abby's video for a good example. This is not the same thing as countering anti-war protestors.
Click to expand...

It looks to me sitting here half a world away that there will definitely be a lot of angry people at GZ on the day.
I hope not but I can see it getting very ugly.
Click to expand...


The thing that makes me nervous about GZ this monday is that the two loudest, angriest people that I caught at GZ were people involved with the FDNY. Imagine the anger eminating from hundreds of them.
 
Abbyas said:
The thing that makes me nervous about GZ this monday is that the two loudest, angriest people that I caught at GZ were people involved with the FDNY. Imagine the anger eminating from hundreds of them.
Click to expand...

Well yes. I think they have a lot to be angry about. I imagine they are still dealing with a lot of grief.
I know you guys won't be the target for their anger, just try to stay out of the crossfire.
 
BRAVO!!! I laughed my ass off and wanted to rip some heads off all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for watching it, guys!

Wanna know something weird? Markyx is actually Gravy, but I'm actually Markyx. Ooooooh.
 
Abbyas said:
Thanks for watching it, guys!

Wanna know something weird? Markyx is actually Gravy, but I'm actually Markyx. Ooooooh.
Click to expand...
:confused: So then who's the badass chick in the video????

All right, folks: Who's going to sacrifice a sock for the cause?
 
The thing that makes me nervous about GZ this monday is that the two loudest, angriest people that I caught at GZ were people involved with the FDNY. Imagine the anger eminating from hundreds of them.
Click to expand...

Not to promote violence just for the sake of violence, buuuttt they have this coming. I know what the day should be,a nice respectful vigil. I see it being their day of reckoning. They need to see how they affect these heroes closeup. The closer the better in my eyes. In a perfect world this would not have to happen. Becareful folks. If you have a chance to take a shot, please make it hurt. I wish you well!

DT
 
defaultdotxbe said:
another thing is, dont US forces comprise most, if not all UN forces?
Click to expand...
No. An excellent example was UNPROFOR(92-95) Bosnia pre NATO IFOR, that had maybe 3-400 US support personnel, no armed peacekeepers per se (congress blocked it thanks to Somalia idiocy) but folks in the mission at the support end. Their efforts supported thousands of peacekeepers from many different nations.

gumboot said:
The UN don't have any "forces". They have Peacekeepers - who are made up of the armed forces of various member states - not including the US (who don't do UN stuff). But when the UN wants to fight a war they don't do it themselves - they grant permission for an international coalition to do it. And yes, the United States has provided the majority of forces for all of these international coalitions - with the exception of INTERFET (East Timor).
Click to expand...
As to the bolded line, it is Bullsh**. Money talks and BS walks.

http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm

WTF do you call this? Peace enforcement, which is harder than peacekeeping by an order of magnitude.
Operation Restore Hope was a United States military operation The US Army participated in from 03 December 1992 to 04 May 1993 for intervention in the Republic of Somalia, sanctioned by the United Nations . . .
Note: Wiki is as usual wrong, since the initial American contribution was the US Marines, most of a MEF. (roughly division strength.)

The US also does stuff the UN is too useless to do, such as the Sinai Multinational Peacekeeping force that the UN won't do. Sine 1982, a US Battalion has been there (used to be a standing task of the 82d Airborne Division.) A good friend of mine spent a year of his life on that force.

US leads NATO IFOR in Bosnia, since the bloody UN is ineffective.

"Doesn't do UN stuff." Really? Then how do you explain the Michael New case? Second section "What masters do US forces serve." See also Specialist New's continuing saga here The courts have made it clear that the US can indeed send troops to UN operations, under the treaty the US Senate approved by participation in the UN, and that New was not within the law to object to serve in them. The lawful order from President Clinton to deploy forces to Macedonia has been upheld.

DR
 
Last edited:
Abbyas said:
Thanks for watching it, guys!

Wanna know something weird? Markyx is actually Gravy, but I'm actually Markyx. Ooooooh.
Click to expand...
That was fantastic! Gravy, you're amazing. I can't believe how much information you could just throw down in the thermite discussion. Really, just too good for words.

The editing was great, the narration was great, and you kept your sense of humor without sounding mean.

Also, if we want to talk about what's "%&*in' hot, dude" look no further. :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :loveatfirstsight:
 
R.Mackey said:
Hello again, brumsen.

Nope, makes no sense at all. Not unless you think the way the WTC towers came down would be an acceptable commercial controlled demolition.

Blow just one floor and they'd collapse, true (unless you blew very close to the top, perhaps), but most CDs try not to destroy ten other buildings and make a huge flaming pile of debris. The more structural elements you destroy, the more control you have. QED.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...didn't it fall into it's own footprint?

Dang it's hard to keep up with this stuff.
 
Quote of the day by Alex Jones after Chomsky has put down the telephone:

"Chomsky, you're a New World Order shill and I've got twice the brain you've got with both arms tied behind my back".

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1687081928697323766&q=alex+jones+noam+chomsky

The interview goes along resonably enough until the 35 minute mark, when Jones gets onto the subject of guns. Jones accuses Chomsky of not being truthful about certain things, the interview ends and Jones goes into a rant, exposing Chomsky as a shill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom