Rounding up the "Traiters" and getting rid of them

Originally posted by exponent

Sure, I hear this a lot. But then I also hear that people like Judy Wood are 'deliberate misinformation'. Is that like 'disinfo'? It all seems to be a big mess where it's just used to accuse people who disagree with whatever someone's saying at the time.

Is there any way you can tell who's being honest and who's being paid? I mean in this thread I've already been accused of inappropriate things, despite not posting for a year and just asking questions! It seems some people are pretty quick on that trigger!

I don't know much about Judy Wood so cannot comment on her.

Disinfo to me is when things like physics cannot be denied, but people will still make up their own laws of physics to win an argument. One then has to question the motives of people that are making stuff up as they go along.

If your opinion is that the term disinfo is used when someone disagrees with whatever someone is saying at the time, then you are entitled to that, but my own view is that when false claims are made deliberately, then that is disinfo. I guess everyone has their own interpretation of what disinfo means.

I have my own ways of deciphering who is a genuine OS believer and who is not, and to me it's obvious who is and who isn't, based on their behaviour over time, and I have said many times before, not everyone that believes the OS is a damage limitation enthusiast.

It makes no odds at the end of the day, we are just people on a forum that will never really be in a position to change anything, we dont have the option of the MSM to promote our views, hence why the story sold on tv that day is what a lot of people still take as gospel. TV is a powerful tool, and the sheeple will believe most things they are presented through that medium. sad but true.

I bought the OS for a while, but as more info has come to light, and now I've done my own research, I've found far too many holes in the OS to take it seriously anymore.

Originally posted by 4hero
Disinfo to me is when things like physics cannot be denied, but people will still make up their own laws of physics to win an argument. One then has to question the motives of people that are making stuff up as they go along.

If your opinion is that the term disinfo is used when someone disagrees with whatever someone is saying at the time, then you are entitled to that, but my own view is that when false claims are made deliberately, then that is disinfo. I guess everyone has their own interpretation of what disinfo means.

I guess my problem is that I do see it all the time. I get it directed at me even for asking simple questions (I've been posting again for all of about 90 minutes and already been accused!) so I just don't believe that anyone has a good way of telling that someone is deliberately spreading disinformation.

I have my own ways of deciphering who is a genuine OS believer and who is not, and to me it's obvious who is and who isn't, based on their behaviour over time, and I have said many times before, not everyone that believes the OS is a damage limitation enthusiast.

Well I'm intrigued. You see I definitely disagree with you about 911, but I obviously know to myself that I'm not paid to post here. How does this work though? What would I have to say for you to think me a shill? I hope just disagreeing with you about 911 isn't enough, but it seems to be for some people.

I bought the OS for a while, but as more info has come to light, and now I've done my own research, I've found far too many holes in the OS to take it seriously anymore.

I still have plenty of doubts, but none that relate to any sort of controlled demolition. I think anyone who claimed to know what happened exactly would be a fool, but as far as I know there still aren't any complete theories about what happened that day other than the 'official' one.

I posted another thread to find out if this had changed, but it doesn't seem to have. Is there any one theory you'd say you subscribe to exactly?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I'm now sick and tired of hearing this topic; in all honestly, if you think you know who are the real culprits then go forth and round them up yourself!

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by exponent

 

Exactly. Truthers routinely characterise debunkers as unthinking patriots when I've only seen a very few who are.

Actually I think Truthers tend to be further to the right, and in fact more nationalist, in that they think the US is a wonderful utopia hijacked by a minority of evil people.

I dont see anything that might hint to that connotation of yours. Once again it is not the truthers who see america as some kind of utopia, but the deniers. Truthers from what I have read have no illusions about americans being better or worse than people elsewhere especially in regards with the people in power.

Your "observations" literally read as if you just flipped 911 deniers with truthers.

I think we can all agree that the op shot himself with this thread in the foot seen as it can be easily shown that the points he tries to smear truthers with, not only are not true for truthers and that truthers tend to be more liekely to have an antagonistic view to what the op claims the attitude of truthers is, but it is also very obvius, that the points he tries to attribute to truthers are more in line with the thinking and Weltanschaung of the deniers.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Or did you guys forget about this guy?

www.usatoday.com...

I am sure the thought that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives made him enraged and dangerous.

But wait there is more



As always, people can read through the tread and make their own conclusion. I also want to point out that the predictions of some of the 911 deniers, that the truthers will go crazy and resort to racial slurs and deathreats in this thread to make their case did not come true. AGAIN !

While we cant look in the head of every truther and every denier, I and others have made a case on why the shoes "revenge fantasies" "bloodlust" and "dangerous because of his believes" fits far better with deniers than truthers. How many people signed up to be soldiers to get Hajies and went to Afghanistan or Iraq because of 911? How many Americans will vote for Obama, because when he was president a house in Pakistan was bloodied? Who can deny that revenge fantasies were the wings of the public support for not one, but two wars?

That truthers are dangerous, suffer from bloodlust and have revenge fantasies, thats something somebody posted. But he did not make a case for it. I can say deniers are more likely to be into pedophilia, but as long as I dont make a case for it, its just something I said.

reply to post by Cassius666


actually, if you read my post, you'll see that I was offering enjoyment of fantasy violence as an explanation for a known fact: Truthers often post implied threats of violence or lynching against people who disagree with them on the internet.

I think that they do so because they enjoy fantasizing about hurting other people, often this fantasy takes the form of lynching, but also "fema" concentration camps. These particular truthers probably feel powerless and victimized in their day to day lives, and enjoy the feeling of power they get by threatening people on the internet.

Do you have a better explanation for the frequent threats of lynching that are made by truthers on this board?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


What I said before, what board have you been reading? I am not on here as often as you, or some of the other posters, but I think I am here more often than the average user. Only revenge fantasy I came across is that of what is perceived as the real perpetrators to be put on trial. And I am still waiting for truthers to become all crazy and psycho on this thread, as predicted by some of the deniers here. So far the most creepy thing in this thread is your slightly disturbing avatar.

I mean there was even an ATS user who went nuts (or was to begin with) and shot a senator. The media lost no time to link him to the 911 truth movement. Where are his posts in the 911 section? Are there any? Or are there people who try to paint a picture of truthers that is removed from the truth?

But wait there is more.

www.racismreview.com...

I better retreat from this thread now, before the 911 deniers resort to foul language deathreats or resort to whatever they perceive in their mind as justified action.

Originally posted by Cassius666


I dont see anything that might hint to that connotation of yours. Once again it is not the truthers who see america as some kind of utopia, but the deniers. Truthers from what I have read have no illusions about americans being better or worse than people elsewhere especially in regards with the people in power.

Your "observations" literally read as if you just flipped 911 deniers with truthers.

I think we can all agree that the op shot himself with this thread in the foot seen as it can be easily shown that the points he tries to smear truthers with, not only are not true for truthers and that truthers tend to be more liekely to have an antagonistic view to what the op claims the attitude of truthers is, but it is also very obvius, that the points he tries to attribute to truthers are more in line with the thinking and Weltanschaung of the deniers.

edit on 26-5-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Um, no. There's even an example of someone using a threat in this thread. A clue - he's a Truther. You may "not come here much" but you aren't blind. There are violent fantasies mentioned by Truthers almost daily, usually along the lines that when the Truth comes out debunkers will be hanged alongside perpetrators in some grisly (and presumably pleasurable) reign of terror.

It isn't debunkers who think that America is potentially wonderful, that it is protected night and day by an impermeable wall of technology and military might, and that without a small cadre of evildoers everything would be fine.

I note you are unable to provide me with evidence of a single debunker who thinks as you say they do.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


With the exact same misspelling as the headline of a recent threat? And thats a serious threat to you? Its obvious where he was going with that, attempting to twist it your way is just deliberately playing dumb.

At any rate I made a case for dangerous deniers who stabbed people in the face and applaud carnage and slaughter that satisfies their revenge fantasies. You and the other deniers did not do the same to pin all of that on truthers, because you just cant.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Perhaps traitors need a wake up call ??

I think what may happen in these cases, ( haven't seen one that stands out AT ALL) is that any sane mind that is not blown over with fear of outsiders can see how laughable the official stance is, and either wants rid of people who believe it, or have them dealt as paid traitors...seems very easy to see in a world that is not run by insanity, you know, the world Official Supporters live in ??? The biggest delusion and lie swallowing crowd IN HISTORY, is fascinating and disturbingly large, and religion fueled of course, but i even know Christians who are leaving the story that you defend.

what a sad sad thread.....interesting but sad.....because people have differing opinions on a subject that has affected a great many people...IF ....JUST if.....it is shown that there was some group such as say Mossad...Or CIA behind 911 .....they have already won....they have divided people.....Truther/truster......are now divided....It is like a racial war now....Disgusting....It is differing opinions....that is all.

It is sad that a character gets assassinated just because of what side of opinion they might take.....sad whomever has perpetrated this crime has already won.....it has divided people not along race now ....but along individual opinion.....

traitors...to whom....I guess i am a traitor to all borders.....I am from Canada.....living and working in England right now......lived and worked in the USA,Singapore,Mexico,New Zealand and Egypt.....

speak Arabic,Cantonese and English......I have been arrested in England under anti terroist laws because of my opinions.....was refused travel to Palestine when Yessar Arafat passed away.....because of some paranoid jewish person did not like my view points.

I have strong beliefs in freedoms and rights for individuals....I fight hard against My freedoms of global movement being taken away.....

and to see a thread which was started with not sure the purpose but for it to turn into a truther/truster traitor scenario is downright ridiculous.....having downright open discussion is what is the best of this forum....not segregating along lines of opinion.

I argue that all borders of all countries should be removed....I was born of this world...i was not born of a country.....the only traitors then would be one who turns against his fellow man.

the only traitors to the people are the governments installed to rule.....ask yourselves if there was no borders....then which country would there be left to war against.....The reason why borders are created is so the the war machine has a reason to exist......we have no need to agree with each other.....if one is color blind you could argue till you turn green in the face that the green light is red....but through the eyes of the color blind person the light might always be red......so i guess he should rounded up and struck down as he will never see things the same way.

It is kinda like laws.....how can some laws be respected if the morality of the people drawing up the laws are different than the ones who are supposed to follow them.

why on this earth does one person ever think they are ever more valuable than the person standing next to them.

We are all the same.....we are all human....the only differences are cultural differences.....and yes i do not like black pudding.

reply to post by plube


Good point I oserved too that many people see it more as a game in making what they perceive to be true prevail, with little interest in finding out what actually happen. Thats something some people on both side of the aisle are guilty of, which can make any discussion teadious.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

With the exact same misspelling as the headline of a recent threat? And thats a serious threat to you? Its obvious where he was going with that, attempting to twist it your way is just deliberately playing dumb.

At any rate I made a case for dangerous deniers who stabbed people in the face and applaud carnage and slaughter that satisfies their revenge fantasies. You and the other deniers did not do the same to pin all of that on truthers, because you just cant.

Whether he was serious or not, you can't honestly have missed the prevalence fo posts where Truthers fantasise about the coming 'judgement day' where all the traitors get hanged.

And posting a story about a weird racist has nothing to do with this issue. Unless you think that almost everybody in the world is a 9/11 "denier". I asked you to provide evidence of a debunker that fit the criteria you described above. You are unable to do so because your characterisation of debunkers is fabricated.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I note the usual excitement about getting hold of the small number of people responsible for 9/11 - along with the groups who help them - and subjecting them to summary justice, usually involving hangings.

I was just wondering if anyone could think of an example from history where people have believed that a country's (or the world's) ills could be cured by rounding up a secretive, manipulative minority and killing them?

Its good for the secretive manipulative minority since they can scapegoat one person to appease the masses of peoples
Kind like how Hitler got almost all the blame for WW2 and is widely regareded as the most evil person of the 20th century (personally he doesn't even make my top 3); despite the fact that he was just a face/voice for the nazis and not even close to its real brainchild
Or the person who essentally put into motion the economic factors that put the Nazis in to power
Starting with the Young plan name for Owen Young owner RCA
But proposed by a man forgotten by history

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970)
In 1905, while on a business trip to the United States with board members of the Dresdner Bank, Schacht met the famous American banker J. P. Morgan, as well as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.
Schacht was a freemason, having joined the lodge Urania zur Unsterblichkeit in 1908.[2]

He collaborated with other prominent economists to form the 1929 Young Plan to modify the way that war reparations were paid after Germany's economy was destabilizing under the Dawes Plan. In December 1929, he caused the fall of the Finance Minister Rudolf Hilferding by imposing upon the government his conditions for obtaining a loan.[1] After modifications by Hermann Müller's government to the Young Plan during the Second Conference of The Hague (January 1930), he resigned as Reichsbank President on 7 March 1930. During 1930, Schacht campaigned against the war reparations requirement in the United States.[1]

The BIS (bank for international settlements) was created by Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's finance minister and governor of the Reichsbank and Montague Norman, the governor of the Bank of England. The main purpose of the BIS was to facilitate the enormous repayments for reparations between countries generated by WWI. However, during WWII, the BIS, under the direction of Thomas McKittrick, was responsible for helping Hitler loot the Gold from conquered countries, for transferring tons of Gold Bullion Bars from the Bank of England directly to fund Hitler's campaign across Europe

He became a supporter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and served in Hitler's government as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics. As such, Schacht helped implement Hitler's policies of redevelopment, reindustrialization, and rearmament.

He was forced out of the government by disagreements with Hitler and other prominent Nazis in December 1937, and had no role during World War II. He became a fringe member of the German Resistance to Hitler and was imprisoned by the Nazis after the 20 July plot.

After the war, he was tried at Nuremberg and acquitted. Schacht was not a member of the NSDAP and shared very little of their ideology. The British judges favored acquittal, while the Soviet judges wanted to convict.[14] The British got their way and Schacht was acquitted.

In 1953, Schacht started a bank, Deutsche Außenhandelsbank Schacht & Co, and advised developing countries on economic development.

You tell me who had a greater impact on the 20th century Schacht or Hitler
The masses of people all to easily mistake pawns for kings

Allowing the devils and real master minds to simply change their name and continue on businesses as usual the only thing that needs to be new is their appearances to the people who are fools to believe them.

CEOs and Presidents whether glorified or vilified in the end they are all easily replaced, when the SHTF

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

With the exact same misspelling as the headline of a recent threat? And thats a serious threat to you? Its obvious where he was going with that, attempting to twist it your way is just deliberately playing dumb.

At any rate I made a case for dangerous deniers who stabbed people in the face and applaud carnage and slaughter that satisfies their revenge fantasies. You and the other deniers did not do the same to pin all of that on truthers, because you just cant.

Whether he was serious or not, you can't honestly have missed the prevalence fo posts where Truthers fantasise about the coming 'judgement day' where all the traitors get hanged.

I did miss them, probably because I am not here quite as often as you and do not read through every thread with the same care. Maybe you are still very young and have more time on your hands. And even if you can produce them, I still made a case for dangerous 911 deniers and none of you were able to make a case for dangerous truthers.

All the things that 911 deniers tried to label truthers with Targeting minorities, 911 deniers. Stabbing one of the rounded up minorities in the face, 911 deniers too. It is quite obvious that 911 deniers simply took something they observed among their own group and simply tried to attatch it to truthers through words.

reply to post by Cassius666


You understand that the guy you linked to isn't a "debunker"? The world is not filled with people debating 9/11 as an inside job. Almost everybody thinks that it was carried out by Al Qaeda and 19 hijackers and they don't even enter the debate - a debate that exists only on tiny corners of the internet.

That's why I was asking you to provide proof for what has been claimed about debunkers - that that they are violent in theory and action. You can't so you won't.

On the other hand there are myriad examples of Truthers on here fantasising about the violent end waiting for perps and their fellow travellers. In a wider sense there is an attitude that the US's ills can be solved by killing a few manipulative people. That's strikingly similar to several 20th century movements and none of them ended well.

So you have one guy with a nick that expresses his anger against party unkown. Thats a far cry from truthers going after minorities because they think they are associated to the events of 2001. Or stabbing people in the face. Or protesting against a place of worship. I gave you plenty of examples of racism from people who believe in the OS based on their believe for the official story and all the other stuff the OP tried to attatch to truthers, right down to somebody acting out in violence because of his believes.

As far as truthers goes, that they harbor revenge fantasies, suffer from bloodlust and are dangerous that is something somebody said, unlike with the deniers and believers, where we had amlple display on how those points do apply to some of them.

I mean not even the allegations that "truthers will use bad language and make threats" and that because of it, it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion has not become true yet on the forum as far as I saw.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Your spelling is very poor and your desire to execute people is unpleasant.

Your ability to read is very poor and he didn't advocate executing people at all. He was repudiating the idea of violently cleansing a minority with different views.

How hard is that to understand?