Did you know a 3rd WTC Tower Fell on 9/11/2001 ?

[HundertzehnGustav]

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"?

More like people are reading: DO feed the trolls.

42 posts in this thread
How many of them have addressed what OP has in mind, i haven't counted.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

or are reading books like: "do not feed the trolls"?

You have your entertainment, I have mine. I figure if I challenge him enough he might actually realize that he is nothing, an empty shell spouting the rhetoric of others, never offering anything for himself.

Of course trolls never do listen or learn. Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll, so in the meantime I'm having fun.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You have your entertainment, I have mine. I figure if I challenge him enough he might actually realize that he is nothing, an empty shell spouting the rhetoric of others, never offering anything for himself.

Of course trolls never do listen or learn. Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll, so in the meantime I'm having fun.

[tonschk]

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented, including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies; the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and a host of secret sites around the globe, and the use of illegal wiretapping against US citizens and other flagrant violations of democratic rights. There is no shortage of statutes under which George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and others could be prosecuted.
The Democrats in Congress were accomplices to the criminality, and now the Obama administration, with minor adjustments, intends to continue these criminal policies. In addition to dispatching more troops to an expanding neo-colonial criminal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US criminal government has recently intervened in several court cases involving torture and illegal wiretapping, defending the previous administration’s actions and invoking “state secrets privilege” to argue that the cases should not even be heard.

[Wolferz]

PIE!

[mapuc]

I have learned one thing and that's there are almost so many conspiracy regarding 9/11 than there are habitants in the state of New York
(OK maybe I have exaggerate a little bit)

What I also have learned is that you shall respect others believes-NOT joint them in their conspiracy crusade. Just some kind of respect.

For many month ago I wrote on Truthers wall

"I'm not into this conspiracy stuff. I do however respect your believes and I do support your demand for a second inquiry....BUT if this inquiry show the same as the first inquiry-would you then believe that there ain't no conspiracy and shut this page down or..."

Got some response on that, can't remember every word in those.

The main story is that we should respect each others believes.
The secon main story is, there ain't no conspiracy regarding 9/11

Markus

[Platapus]

As others have written, it is amazing that at the exact same time, the United States government is

1. Inept at running anything efficiently
2. Unable to coordinate activity efficiently
3. Staffed with lazy people who can't get a job in the commercial world
4. Staffed with evil people each one of which is bent on destroying the constitution
5. Staffed with blind loyalty sheep with no morals of their own who mindlessly carry out orders like automatons.

and

6. is capable of planning, organizing, staffing, implementing, and covering up massive conspiracies involving thousands of people and dozens of government offices at the federal and state level.

All at the same time?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tonschk

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented

Not really. The accusations are well documented. Let's take a look at them.

including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies

Possibly. The problem is, whose lies? Did Bush and Cheney actively lie so they could get the war they wanted, or did they make the mistake of believing the intel they were given? You need to remember the number of different people who also believed the WMD story, and also remember that Saddam himself was bragging about his WMDs not all that long ago. Whether he had time or not is irrelevant to the question of why it was believed he did.

the torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and a host of secret sites around the globe

The abuse is well documented. The administration's involvement is not. The people who conducted the abuse were punished. Did they recieve orders from higher up? You can believe it if you want, but that is not documented at all.

and the use of illegal wiretapping against US citizens and other flagrant violations of democratic rights.

All legally santioned by an act of Congress. I am one of many who believe the Patriot Act to be morally reprehensible and Unconstitutional, but they passed it and we have to prove they were wrong. Like it or not, calling it illegal doesn't make it so.

There is no shortage of statutes under which George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and others could be prosecuted

Actually there is a great shortage of statutes, or it would have been done. Your precious truthers make claim after claim, yet they can't show any of them to be worth anyone's while.

The Democrats in Congress were accomplices to the criminality, and now the Obama administration, with minor adjustments, intends to continue these criminal policies. In addition to dispatching more troops to an expanding neo-colonial criminal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan,

The war might be wrong, it might be immoral, and it might be criminal in your belief, but can you show exactly what laws have been broken?

the US criminal government has recently intervened in several court cases involving torture and illegal wiretapping, defending the previous administration’s actions and invoking “state secrets privilege” to argue that the cases should not even be heard.

Your use of the word "intervened" makes it sound like the government overturned a court decision, something it cannot do. What has really happened is that court cases have been brought against the government, and they are attempting to invoke priveledges to keep from answering. As long as the trials are ongoing, your claims are silly.

Now to the real point: Rather than defend your trolling about US involvement in 9/11, you try to divert the argument by making more accusations. You still haven't answered any of the questions concerning your original post. This forces me to ask again - do you have anything real at all? Are you capable of presenting facts and making a real argument, or are you going to continue to parrot what others say?

Originally Posted by tonschk

The enormous crimes of the Bush administration are well-documented, including the launching of an aggressive war on the basis of lies..........

Even if everything you wrote in that post is 100% true what has it got to do with the price of cheese?
Do you have anything that supports you Troofer "theory" about 9/11 that can not be instantly demolished as complete nonsense?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But wouldn't this come under:

We also have the right to ban users who contribute to poisoning the well. Just as a radio talk host has the right to decide which callers he airs and a newspaper editor decides which letters he prints and which he throws away, the moderators in the Radio Room forums have final say on rants and spews they decide should be cut.

Correct and I admit I had previously revisited the FAG & Rules section.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.

Agreed....I'm happy to let the thread continue and observe for any future developments because tbh it is kind of entertaining to some folk.

[Spiced_Rum]

Originally Posted by tonschk

launching of an aggressive war

Are there other kinds of war? Passive aggressive. Defensive. Friendly. Or just a war. Both sides will say that their war is Just or justified.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tonschk

including the launching of an aggressive war.

Like all conspiracy theories, there is always a grain of truth. Whether the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was an aggressive war or not, depends on what the definition of aggression is.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) does define aggression.

Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

The key is the phrase "inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations". The United Nations, does authorize military action in specific circumstances governed by articles 39 through 49 of the United Nations charter. But there are rules to follow.



It was the United States' position that the Invasion of Iraq was in furtherance of existing UNSC resolutions.



The problem is Article 46 which states, in its entirety:

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

The United States when implementing the Invasion of Iraq did not go through the United Nations Security Council Military Staff Committee.



An argument could then be made that the Invasion of Iraq was "inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations" and therefore qualified as an act of aggression.


However, the United States (and other countries) have a habit of selectively following the UN rules when it is convenient and ignoring them when inconvenient.



This is why, as an analyst, I have to shake my head ruefully when I read about the United States admonishing some other country for not following UN resolutions.


There are pots and kettles in the world of foreign policy.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Can't lock him up, because there are no rules against being a troll

But wouldn't this come under:

We also have the right to ban users who contribute to poisoning the well. Just as a radio talk host has the right to decide which callers he airs and a newspaper editor decides which letters he prints and which he throws away, the moderators in the Radio Room forums have final say on rants and spews they decide should be cut.

[Sailor Steve]

That's true, and a forum moderator could lock this thread and brig the boy for trolling, but I wouldn't want to see that happen, at least not if he decides he really can construct an argument. If he decides to just make post after post filled with nothing but links, well, we'll see.