Truthers and anti-Semitism

RedIbis said:
Uh, antiwar.com is not a neo nazi site. It's one of the best, most comprehensive news sites reporting on any conflict across the globe. Your hair trigger response is dare I say, dirt dumb, to borrow your charming, little phrase.
Click to expand...


Theres a lot of truthy nonsense on it and a load of Israeli crap as well.

Not neo nazi but crap all the same.
 
MaGZ said:
Atta and Able Danger
http://911review.org/Alex/Able-Danger-3.html
Click to expand...

Repeating the same old hearsay, to support your bigotry, does not make it true.

Israeli intelligence probably did know there was an attack planned. Many agencies did.

They did not know when and where and who. They did not help.

Hows that race war coming? The one you claimed would happen if a certain President got in?
 
I feel sorry for MaGZ. What if you threw a race war and nobody showed up?
 
RedIbis said:
Uh, antiwar.com is not a neo nazi site. It's one of the best, most comprehensive news sites reporting on any conflict across the globe. Your hair trigger response is dare I say, dirt dumb, to borrow your charming, little phrase.
Click to expand...
Next time read to comprehend, or stop being a bigot. At least Stormfront neoNAZIs like antiwar.com like you do. Et tu, Pseudibis papillosa

RedIbis said:
I suppose Paul Thompson is no truther, then, whatever a truther is. Even you would have to admit you rely on what is probably the most thorough and comprehensive 9/11 research site on the web.
Click to expand...
Paul Thompson's time-line is great but the comments and implications in his compilations are as you said dirt dumb tacit support for the 911TruthLIES movement. Great time-line but you have to apply knowledge and sound judgment to get the truth from Thompson's time-line bent with implied conspiracy. If you use the raw data from Thompson's time-line and believe it, you could end up being a dirt dumb truther. I wonder how many people suffer from that problem.

NeoNAZIs support the failed truth movement due to ignorance and the inability to dig out the facts and evidence from their favorite news sources.
 
RedIbis said:
I suppose Paul Thompson is no truther, then, whatever a truther is. Even you would have to admit you rely on what is probably the most thorough and comprehensive 9/11 research site on the web.
Click to expand...
Quantity is not the same as quality. Thompson may not repeat as many absurd claims as, say, Griffin, but History Commons are just as good at omitting relevant information where it's inconvenient to their case. And that applies even to areas where Thompson's supposed to be an authority, like Saeed Sheikh.

So, no, I may check History Commons to see what sources they have, but I certainly don't rely on them being "thorough" or "comprehensive", and I don't trust their observations or conclusions in the slightest.
 
MaGZ is proof 9/11 truth attracts holocaust deniers like drunk blondes attract hard dicks.
 
Last edited:
MikeW said:
Quantity is not the same as quality. Thompson may not repeat as many absurd claims as, say, Griffin, but History Commons are just as good at omitting relevant information where it's inconvenient to their case. And that applies even to areas where Thompson's supposed to be an authority, like Saeed Sheikh.

So, no, I may check History Commons to see what sources they have, but I certainly don't rely on them being "thorough" or "comprehensive", and I don't trust their observations or conclusions in the slightest.
Click to expand...

What information about Sheikh has he omitted?
 
RedIbis said:
What information about Sheikh has he omitted?
Click to expand...
It's not about Sheikh directly, more Thompson's claims about Sheikh.

It's also too long to explain here in full, but the summary is something like this.

In this essay Thompson, amongst other things, makes the case that:

a) post 9/11, Saeed Sheikh gradually appeared in press reports as the 9/11 financier
b) then the ISI/ Sheikh/ Atta story appeared
c) and after that he was largely forgotten as a number of other people were mentioned instead

This then gets used elsewhere to emphasise the importance of the ISI/ Sheikh/ Atta story (ie they had to cover it up).

But to create this effect, though, Thompson

1) doesn't mention the first press report on the financier, which appeared in the Economist, and
2) points to the same information appearing later in the Guardian, but misleads readers by saying it's "not clear" who they're referring to, and failing to mention details that make it sound like someone other than Saeed Sheikh (ie they said it was a man who worked for bin Laden in Sudan), and
3) fails to clearly point out that there's a much better fit for the financier, a man known as Sheikh Saeed who did work for bin Laden in Sudan. and
4) therefore when that man is mentioned later, portrays this as a change of story when it's nothing of the kind

More: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Forgetting_Saeed_Sheikh

Individually these are small things, but that's all it takes. An omission, a shift in time, a detail left out, and that's enough to create a false impression.
 
Last edited:
This week the Montréal 9/11 Truth group was upset over the leader of the local anti-war group calling them antisemites. I had to point out that their entire raison d’être is to make similar accusations.…
 
One of the main guys in 911 Truth Chicago is sending out the claim that Israel and the USA government. He claims he has visited Pakistan and there they all know it's the CIA and Israel government agents who are causing unrest.

I copied his letter to a post on the conspiracy forum here
 
Care to point out to MaGZ what he's gotten blatantly wrong, Red?

You wouldn't want your silence to be interpreted as tacit approval of his antisemitic ravings, would you?
 
CHF said:
The well-known Jew-haters in the TM aren't some sort of abberation or fringe group. Their beliefs are the logical outcome of the twisted mindset that truthers have.
Click to expand...

There's truth in what you're saying. It's this that has been steadily putting me off 9/11 conspiracy theory.

ref said:
But I must say I think it's healthy for every member of the TM (and debunker alike) to understand, that these theories started very early, and they were mostly started by people who were very opposed to anything "official" to begin with. They used this as an opportunity to spread their world views.
Click to expand...

The above was a bit of a revelation to me a few years back. I hadn't considered the fact that all the major TM players came to this with 'inside job' already as their conclusion.
 
WildCat said:
Wasn't it you who provided a timeline of the earliest 9/11 conspiracy theories? Just about all of them by anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers like Carol Valentine?
Click to expand...

Yes I was. Well, maybe it's just a matter of opinion. In my timeline I mention 13 different "early people" by their name. Among of those 13 there are 3 people, that are proven to be holocaust deniers or sympathisers. I don't have Christopher Bollyn on my timeline, we should include him as well. Now we have 4 out of 14. That's a huge share of nuttiness to begin with, but I wouldn't call under a third of a population "just about all of them". Don't get me wrong here, even 1 denier is too many. I'm just talking from the mathematical point of view here. :rolleyes:

Some of those 14 have been more "productive" than others. For example Carol Valentine has provided us with an disproportionate amount of theories. So if we count the amount of those early theories that originated from a holocaust denier (compared to a non-denier source), the share of deniers might be higher.

Let's leave it at that, shall we :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom