Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
1. How is it "lazy" to identify culprits in the NWO agenda (I said "Bush/Cheney/Obama/fill-in-the NWO stooge...) as the terrorists in 9/11? I
mean, that cabal pulled it off.
2. Why is it "laughable?
There is no undeniable evidence that they did it. There is some ambiguous evidence that they may have let it happened, but that's the most of
You make it sound as if it's a matter of religion. Like One must have faith. It is NOT My beliefs I speak. It is My convictions based on analysis.
When You offer evidence that shows I am in error, I am quite happy to admit it.
It's laughable because, as always Mr Amaterasu, you never even try to see anything beyond your own beliefs.
All You have done is oblique ad hom. Have I ever said to You that You do or don't do things? No. I may say, "It's My opinion that You do this," or
"It seems that." Or ask a question, like, "You do this other thing, don't You?" giving You the opportunity to refute.
You? You don't own Your views of Me the way I do of My own views of You. You state it as "fact" that I "never," and My "beliefs" are narrow. Very
spookish of You.
But no.... I tried for the longest time to hold onto the Disney-perfect world, but evidence and logic support the inside job to a tee. And
especially when viewing history does the pattern emerge all the clearer. You SEEM to have issue putting the puzzle together far enough to see the
whole picture. (I THINK it is YOURS that is the narrow view.)
It's quite laughable and its why you don't have much merit for your statements, I can see past my beliefs.
Sweetheart, I can see two points of view for not claiming to see the forest for the trees. Either One is so emotionally tied to the picture They had
of a perfect (or near perfect) government that They will NOT allow Themselves to go there where They must be wary - in fact, They let fear control
them: it's too scary to THINK about! It can't be true!
Or... They are spooks. [shrug]
And is that an implied ad hom there? You can see past Yours but I cannot see past mine? Of course, it's moot, because We are not talking "beliefs"
We must have "faith" in. We're talking deep analysis.
I can say yes, it does look like a demolition. I cannot state that there is much proof other than what looks like. And I've seen a lot of
things that look like something but aren't it. And I'm not ready to rush into assumptions, unlike yourself.
Let's use ol' Occam's Razor... The most straightforward explanation for the three buildings coming down is...? Demolition. If the story had been
demo from the start, no One would question it. Now, since the buildings came down as they did, with the announcement that it WASN'T CD, there have
been numbers of theories floating around. The "pancake" theory went through its heyday, but was shot down because it would have left the central
columns standing. The "all that paper and jet fuel weakened things so that the weight caused the whole buildings to just give" theory with a fuel
bomb going all the way to the lobbies" and other convoluted "explanations" just keep stretching to try and cover the details.
What is the only explanation that needs no stretching? CD.
Do They then? [looks around] I see a great many angry People, love, and NONE of Them has blown anything up. Huh. I wonder when They all
will begin this blowing up stuff... Heck. They haven't even HIT someOne, let alone blowing stuff up.
Well there was that ats member who took a shot at a congresswoman, but I guess that doesn't matter in your viewpoints.
(Ooo. Congrats on owning it!) I will not say that out of 300 million People, there will never be One who might behave aberrantly. But if We live in
fear of that One in 300 million People striking somewhere - We might as well bury Ourselves in a hole in the ground and never come out. (And I give
good odds of that Guy being a plant...a manchurian candidate, perhaps. But that is an educated guess.)
No, the occasional whacko going ballistic happens, regardless of what We might do. You, however, seemed to implying that ALL (or even half?) angry
People threw snit-fits and dropped bombs, or whatever.
No it isn't. Most Humans still control Themselves when angry. And besides... All these "terrorists" are NWO propaganda.
No, most people do not control their anger.
Huh?!? They may get angry, They may yell, but They don't go killing things in a snit-fit. They control THAT behavior.
That's why Bush had +80% approval after 9/11 and nobody would have been against him nuking Afghanistan.
Oh, no. THAT was a case of Their anger both directed and misdirected - deliberately. Their anger was propped, used, and They were thereby
manipulated. But NONE decided to go fly planes into THEIR buildings because of this anger.
Terrorists are not propaganda.
Given that the vast majority of the "terrorist" attacks have been fishy at best, and the Media hypes "terror." Talks about the "War on Terror" to
justify brutality, invasion and usurpation. Keeps this idea in the fore, as though every american city will soon be nuked by terrorists... Given
this, I think it's fair to say it's propaganda.
Like I said in another thread. Get out of your closet and see the world.
I assure You, I have seen much, more than most. (Own that, love, as in "I THINK You should get out of...")
I've seen angry people ready for blood against the cops, against the government, against their fellow man. Now I'd save a cop, or a government
man, or a random dude on the street. But I certainly would not try to stop the victim of a rapist from shooting her attacker. That's not my place.
Fact of the matter is terrorists exists. Today we call them terrorists, but they've been called everything from patriots to pirates, mercenaries to
gladiators. They exist.
[sigh] Victims of rape protecting Themselves is hardly in the same ballpark as "terrorists." Social uprising is not terrorism. Plotting bomb
destruction. THAT's terrorism. At least as *I* have been using it.
But if You have to win a point by changing the definition, conrats again. If We change the definition to whatever You want it to be, You'll be right
Ahhh. Children throw snit-fits. They must be children You are speaking of (regardless of actual age), because part of becoming an adult
is growing out of snit-fits. And I really am aghast that You suggest that a child's snit-fit is equal to countries bombing other countries. And... If
You are correct, there are MANY countries about to throw snit-fits, because They have never done so They are long overdue. After all, countries bomb
one another like children throw snit-fits. Watch out!
They are ready to, There's just a superpower in the way of doing it.
You've got to be kidding. Really. ALL the countries are armed and champing at the bit to lob bombs at One anOther but the Big Brother Superpower
won't let Them. Dear, most countries couldn't care less about other countries as long as the other countries leave them alone. Now who is it that
needs a reality check?
The same reason a child will stop being a child when presented with a whip and repeated punishment.
Oh. I see. We have Them beaten into submission! Ahhhh.
Rest assured, when America collapsed there will be wars everywhere, and probably China will try to be the next world police man.
I will not so rest. Surprises happen even still.
Speak for Yourself, then. I am not a terrorist. I follow the three Laws.
No, you just don't accept what's within you. Every man has a limit. Yours may be higher, but it still exists.
Uh. Ok. Sure. Um. Yeah. Heh. You're right.
I have no clue what You're alluding to.
Not many locked in their ways do.
WTF. You make a cryptic remark that seemed nonsequitur and it obviously had some reference that I am not immediately privy to, and You respond with
another oblique ad hom.
Go ahead and respond, Gor, but I will be paying You no heed. I learned that lesson once, I should just stick with it. You know the line: have a
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags again