Why truthers are dangerouse!

Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:
underdog said:
Sure, and we can make SAMs to take out their air power.

We BUY as many as we can get, but the heat-seekers can

be made cheaper by using radio-control. A guy hidden on

the ground just guides the rocket into the exhaust of the helo.

If camel-drivers and rug merchants can KICK THEIR ASSES

WE CAN TOO.
Click to expand...

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:

RJB said:
If two of them die for every one of us, then we will win handily, and in short order.

My goal is simple, and that is to succeed in taking out more than one of them. I will consider that a victory. I do not need to be an Audy Murphy, and our cause does not need anyone like that to succeed.

If there are 3 million top globalist elites in the world, then we could wipe them all out with a sacrifice of 1.5 million of us.

I suspect that we could take out the top 300 and the **** would stop immediately. If not, then we move down the line to the top 3,000. And so on, UNTIL THE ******** STOPS, AND THEY STOP WAGING WAR AGAINST THE REST OF US.
Click to expand...

One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.
 
Last edited:
tuc0 said:
A skeptic is someone who demands evidence... and then goes where that evidence leads. You on the other hand like to work backwards from a conclusion and only accept evidence that supports what you want to be true. That's a major difference.
Click to expand...

Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.

Thanks.


sylvan8798 said:
Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:



One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.
Click to expand...

They sound like many other ordinary Americans who glorify violence, some of whom post their militaristic fantasies and preoccupations with military hardware on this very forum.

Putting aside the deficiencies in your sampling method (!!) , do you have any evidence that these posters are "truthers"? Can you identify who they are?

No-one with genuine intent to carry out violent acts against their own government is likely to publicize their plans in advance on the Awex Jones website!
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
They sound like many other ordinary Americans who glorify violence, some of whom post their militaristic fantasies and preoccupations with military hardware on this very forum.
Click to expand...

Truthers have shown time and again their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. And don't many of these nutcase mass shooters start out with a fantasy that they then put into action? Or doesn't that happen on your planet?
 
JihadJane said:
Tell that to your logic teacher.
Click to expand...
Par said:
UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

  1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
  2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
  3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
  4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
  5. ∴Lpj
Click to expand...
Par said:
You put logic in sneer quotes. If you think something’s logically wrong with it, then be specific about where.
Click to expand...
JihadJane said:
Sorry, I thought I was being very specific. If we forget about defining "truther" for the moment, the premise that Sylvan8798's statement, "Tell that to the families of Richard Poplawski's victim's in Pittsburgh, and James von Brunn's victim's in Washington, JJ", supports would be something like "Two Truthers are dangerous", but certainly not the generalization "Truthers are dangerous".
Click to expand...
Par said:
I think we have our wires crossed. You sneered at my logic. I asked you to be specific about what is wrong with my logic, rather than what is wrong with Sylvan8798's remarks.
Click to expand...
JihadJane said:
There would be nothing wrong with it if it didn't relate to Sylvan8798's remarks or the real world.
Click to expand...
Par said:
Erm. Well, that’s not all that precise. In fact, I just don't know what you mean. If I’ve made a logical mistake – which is of course possible – I’d like to know about it. So, can you be specific about what I get wrong?
Click to expand...
JihadJane said:
I don't know how to make it more precise. There's nothing wrong with your logic in itself but it fails to recognize the collective nature of the noun "Truthers" ("Tx: x is a Truther") and therefore your very logical logic doesn’t apply to my statement or, as I understood it, to the OP’s. Perhaps "irrelevant" would be more accurate than "illogical".
Click to expand...
Par said:
I think I’m starting to see the problem. You're labouring under the misconception that the predicate “Tx: x is a Truther” means I can’t be referring to more than one. But of course I can (and do). That’s what the quantifiers are for. Perhaps this confusion stems from the fact you simply don’t understand formal logic. If not, no worries. Just say so.
Click to expand...
JihadJane said:
I'm not interested in your "formal logic". I only want to know, in plain English...
Click to expand...


Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion, you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about; first you were snide about other people’s logic, and now – now you’ve been caught out – logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.


JihadJane said:
I'm not interested in your "formal logic". I only want to know, in plain English, how it can be considered logical to claim that a sample of two people can be used to support a generalization about thousands or millions of people. If your formula demonstrates this please explain how it does so, in English.
Click to expand...


By the way, no, it doesn’t demonstrate that. Nor does it attempt to. You would know what it means if knew anything about logic.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Look at what Jones had in his studio 9 years ago and compare it to what he has now. Then explain to me how he managed to upgrade to all of those big HD flat screens and everything else you see in the background without making money hand over fist. Are you suggesting that he lives in poverty while sinking every extra cent into his studio? Your "Heroes" are fleecing you and you gladly let them.
Click to expand...

It's very possible that Jones may be in cute with some company or corporate fat cat.

"I'll scratch your back you scratch mine" (hense the big HD flat screens). That line is as old if not older than time.

Does a bear :rule10 in the woods or take up honey? A bear is known to do both. If I was a skeptic, I would be curious about any silent partners.
 
JihadJane said:
Please explain how you arrived at your anti-semitism analysis because, as it stands, it looks like nothing more than crude mud slinging.
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
Please substantiate your assertions.
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.
Click to expand...

In your rush to demand evidence of others, you seemed to have forgotten to provide any of your own. Or is substantiating claims something that applies to everyone except you?
 
JihadJane said:
Humans are dangerous
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
Truthers aren't dangerous.
Click to expand...

Professor Par, can we conclude from this construction that Truthers aren't human?

Human -> dangerous

Truthers ~ dangerous

Ergo: Truthers not human

??:(
 
TruthersLie said:
Then you should be able to source any of your claims.



I have... EVERY SINGLE claim made by twoofs... and they always come back to a twoof who needs remedial english classes for their poor reading comprehension.

why don't you tell me what they are about... I've read them. Feel free, show us your fantastic reading comprehension skills.


Ah... nice to see the antisemitism.... da jooooooz did it. It would help if you had any facts, or even a coherent idea of what happened.

p.s. the joooooz know exactly who you are and where... they will be by with bagels and some cheese soon.
Click to expand...

I guess that it is alright to claim that certain radical factions of Islam are responsible for all the terrorism in the world...Or to accuse protestants like Cheney, the Bush's, & the British & Dutch Royals of complicity in all the wars and disease of the last 300 years...Or the pedofilic Catholic Vatican wing and it's devotion to facism and nazism...None of those assertions will bring a charge of racism or nazism from the well rehearsed peanut galleries here on JREF or throughout the net...But make any reference to the pseudo-Jew bolchevik terrorists of Israel, like Begin, Ben Gurion, Sharon, Olmert, Netanyahu et al, or the dual citizen traitors who have oozed into US government in droves in the last 30 yrs like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Chertoff and the like and they stand and scream "anti-semite"! Traitors and scum hide behind all religious factions...Also I really liked the little backhanded threat at the end of your post....And I'm shakin' all over...LOL...Now I have to fear the Jews as well as the ARABS!!! Oh No..
 
Par said:
Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion, you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about; first you were snide about other people’s logic, and now – now you’ve been caught out – logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Nicely done, Par.

So what odds are currently being given that JihadJane will now completely evade this topic, if not flee the thread altogether?
 
Par said:
Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion,
Click to expand...

Wrong

...you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about;
Click to expand...

I've never once claimed to know anything about formal logic

... first you were snide about other people’s logic,
Click to expand...

true, it stank.

.. and now – now you’ve been caught out –
Click to expand...

No, I haven't been "caught out".

..logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...



Once again, I've never claimed to be an expert in formal logic though, looking at your equations, it doesn't look like it would be a difficult language to learn.

I'm not interested in playing "I'm better at abstracting than you are" games.

Put down your distorting "Trutherdom" glasses and demonstrate how your logic relates to the OP.

I wasn't sneering at logic, the science, but the logic of the OP and Sylvan8798's statement and the way you apparently attempted to give it respectability with your apparently unrelated logic equations. Sorry if I hurt your logic feelings. Perhaps you aren't attempting to support the OP's decidedly unscientific project of smearing 911 skepticism. If not, then what is the relevance of your logic demonstration? Why can’t you explain what your symbols say in plain English?

By the way, no, it doesn’t demonstrate that. Nor does it attempt to. You would know what it means if knew anything about logic.
Click to expand...



What, then, in your opinion, is it demonstrating? Educate me.

The OP (and it's not the first on JREF to play this Killer Truther game) seeks to demonstrate that truthers are dangerous. It does so by stating that they are with a rhetorical When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?-type question. Sylvan8798 joins in by citing two examples.

How does your logic relate to this concrete, real-world event? I want to know.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


sylvan8798 said:
Truthers have shown time and again their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

And don't many of these nutcase mass shooters start out with a fantasy that they then put into action? Or doesn't that happen on your planet?
Click to expand...

Without actually studying the people in question your conjecture is no different from Truthers' or anyone else's fantasies that you don't like. Where is your concrete evidence? Do you know anything about the killers' psychology beyond what you are apparently guessing at? Do you know what happened to them during their formative years?

And don't you think it's about time we defined this term "Truthers"?

Are you being logical and scientific?

It looks like pure speculation to me, possibly tinged with hope.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I wasn't sneering at logic, the science, but the logic of the OP and Sylvan8798's statement and the way you apparently attempted to give it respectability with your apparently unrelated logic equations. Sorry if I hurt your logic feelings. Perhaps you aren't attempting to support the OP's decidedly unscientific project of smearing 911 skepticism. If not, then what is the relevance of your logic demonstration? Why can’t you explain what your symbols say in plain English?
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought a "logic teacher" into the discussion. Logic teachers teach formal logic. If you didn't care to discuss this topic in terms beyond your intellectual capacity, then maybe you shouldn't have made a crack implying that you have knowledge of something which you clearly don't.

But speaking for all of us laughing at you flaming out in yet another thread, I'm quite pleased that you did. :D
 
JihadJane said:
Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.
Click to expand...

What was it that first peaked your interest of 911 as an inside job? You said it was from rhetoric after the 7/7 attacks. You made a decision on 911 due to rhetoric from an unrelated attack not because of evidence. You started off thinking it was an inside job. You ignore evidence which proves your claims wrong.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:



One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.
Click to expand...

Kooks indeed,

Talking about constructing/obtaining a destructive device for the purpose of shooting down aircraft, and having that conversation in a public forum, is a very good way to attract the attention of the relevant agencies, and end up having someone keep an eye on you.

Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.

L.
 
Lupie said:
Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.
Click to expand...

I think actually giving people detailed instructions on how to commit a crime might not fall within the confines of the first amendment. Not that they've gotten that specific, but it has to be getting into a grey area over there. Out of a group of hundreds (or thousands?) there are always a few who are on the edge, mentally, and just need a little teensy push.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I think actually giving people detailed instructions on how to commit a crime might not fall within the confines of the first amendment. Not that they've gotten that specific, but it has to be getting into a grey area over there. Out of a group of hundreds (or thousands?) there are always a few who are on the edge, mentally, and just need a little teensy push.
Click to expand...


It's definitely a grey area over there. Generally, offering to supply, or having in one's posession the instructions for building a destructive device is not illegal, although there are exceptions. But if one starts gathering the necessary components for the device, it is illegal even if they have not actually constructed the device yet. But with all the other violent/illegal acts they are talking about in that thread, like the abduction/murder of the families of military and government employees, they are very much in a grey area.

I think most truthers are not so totally gone that they would act upon the things mentioned in those infowars posts, but like you say, it only takes a few who are near the edge, who get that final push, and end up doing something terrible in the name of their movement. We have all seen posts on truther websites where a person threatens to commit an act of violence, and rather than site administrators, moderators, and members discouraging the person, they egg them on and even offer to help.

L.
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
What was it that first peaked your interest of 911 as an inside job? You said it was from rhetoric after the 7/7 attacks. You made a decision on 911 due to rhetoric from an unrelated attack not because of evidence. You started off thinking it was an inside job. You ignore evidence which proves your claims wrong.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that traitors within the US government like Cheney, Bush & Zakheim were not complicit in the 911 attacks? To the contrary, the evidence certainly suggests that there was inside help from US sources as well as Mossad, ISI, & Saudi Intel. Read:"Solving 911-The Book"

http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book


.....Free On The Web....All the evidence points to the fact that this attack was orchestrated and choreographed by a sophistocated well funded ($billions) international cabal, not a rogue shadowy band of fundementalists. Trillions have been made as a result of these attacks...Follow the money...It is almost always the ones who profit or benifit that are responsible for murders.
 
jmh423 said:
What evidence is there that traitors within the US government like Cheney, Bush & Zakheim were not complicit in the 911 attacks? To the contrary, the evidence certainly suggests that there was inside help from US sources as well as Mossad, ISI, & Saudi Intel. Read:"Solving 911-The Book"

http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book


.....Free On The Web....All the evidence points to the fact that this attack was orchestrated and choreographed by a sophistocated well funded ($billions) international cabal, not a rogue shadowy band of fundementalists. Trillions have been made as a result of these attacks...Follow the money...It is almost always the ones who profit or benifit that are responsible for murders.
Click to expand...

So we should suspect Alex Jones?
 
BobHaulk said:
i thought the title of this thread was Are Truthers Dangermouse? but alas not.
Click to expand...

ibag1985-dangermouse.gif


He's the fastest he's the greatest he's the best DANGER MOUSE!
 
Last edited:
Lupie said:
Kooks indeed,

Talking about constructing/obtaining a destructive device for the purpose of shooting down aircraft, and having that conversation in a public forum, is a very good way to attract the attention of the relevant agencies, and end up having someone keep an eye on you.

Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.

L.
Click to expand...

How do you know they are even "troothers" (whatever that is translated into grown-up language)?

Does your skepticism only operate in certain directions?
 
BobHaulk said:
i thought the title of this thread was Are Truthers Dangermouse? but alas not.
Click to expand...

Don't mock it, this is a very realistice threat from extremists! I haven't been following, but we have decided 911Kongen is not really Danger Mouse himself, right?
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for response to modded post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jmh423 said:
I guess that it is alright to claim that certain radical factions of Islam are responsible for all the terrorism in the world.
Click to expand...

strawman, and a piss poor one at that twoof. No one has claimed athat ALL of the terrorism in the world in from Islam.

But when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and floats on water it is obviously a giraffe.

Even the Muslims ALL OVER THE WORLD agree that their religion has issues with extremists.

..Or to accuse protestants like Cheney, the Bush's, & the British & Dutch Royals of complicity in all the wars and disease of the last 300 years...
Click to expand...
Bush hasn't been alive that long... now cheney on the other hand I can see...

try again, maybe this time with facts. Not conjecture, not racism or a blind hatred of a group.

Or the pedofilic Catholic Vatican wing and it's devotion to facism and nazism...
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to 9/11. Generally irrelevant unless you have been touched by one of those priests... oh wait a minute

None of those assertions will bring a charge of racism or nazism from the well rehearsed peanut galleries here on JREF or throughout the net...But make any reference to the pseudo-Jew bolchevik terrorists of Israel, like Begin, Ben Gurion, Sharon, Olmert, Netanyahu et al, or the dual citizen traitors who have oozed into US government in droves in the last 30 yrs like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Chertoff and the like and they stand and scream "anti-semite"!
Click to expand...

No what gets you labeled that is when you start making accustaions w/out proof based on heresy and outright lies. That makes you an antisemite. When you grab a problem and IMMEDIATELY blame the jews... then you are an antisemite... if you think there should be a "solution" for them jooooooz... then you are a bigot and an antisemite.

AGain twoof, I live in a muslim nation that has NO love for the israelis... and they admit that UBL did it (since 2 of their own citizens were part of 9/11... having met their families, EVEN THEIR FAMILIES KNOW THEY DID IT). Come out to the arab world, i can show you fantastic people, wonderfully open mined people... and in under an hour, I can take you places where you will be afraid for your life.

Traitors and scum hide behind all religious factions...
Click to expand...

Yup they do. Now if you only had PROOF of your accusations of mass murder of innocents.. you don't. The PROOF is 19 terrorists hijacked 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings. The OVERWHELMING proof supports that.

Also I really liked the little backhanded threat at the end of your post....And I'm shakin' all over...LOL...Now I have to fear the Jews as well as the ARABS!!! Oh No..
Click to expand...

OH no... the reading for comprehension of the twoof strikes again... it wasn't a threat twoofie, it is called SARCASM. I knwo you don't understand it, anymore than you understand similies and metaphors... you really should look it up.
 
jmh423 said:
I guess that it is alright to claim that certain radical factions of Islam are responsible for all the terrorism in the world...
Click to expand...

No, and if anyone were to claim (for example) that the IRA terrorism campaign against the UK were the work of radical Islamic factions, they'd get opposed and/or ridiculed like any other proponent of an indefensible position.

jmh423 said:
Or to accuse protestants like Cheney, the Bush's, & the British & Dutch Royals of complicity in all the wars and disease of the last 300 years...
Click to expand...

I think that if anyone accused Dick Cheney of complicity in all the wars of the last 300 years, nobody would be able to post for laughing. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see it suggested on the David Icke forums.

jmh423 said:
Or the pedofilic Catholic Vatican wing and it's devotion to facism and nazism...
Click to expand...

I find it remarkable that your entire mindset appears to be so thoroughly warped by conspiracism, that you can't even produce credible looking examples of non-conspiracist thinking, even though you try your hardest. I mean, really, when you can't even present your opponent's position as being different from your own, there's got to be something wrong with your reasoning.

Dave
 
Lupie said:
Kooks indeed,

Talking about constructing/obtaining a destructive device for the purpose of shooting down aircraft, and having that conversation in a public forum, is a very good way to attract the attention of the relevant agencies, and end up having someone keep an eye on you. Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.

L.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp I know there's plenty of stupid on the tubes, but this is just...
:rule10 non-credible! These bone-brains are worried about Islam? Clues R Us is ->

:id:
 
TruthersLie said:
strawman, and a piss poor one at that twoof. No one has claimed athat ALL of the terrorism in the world in from Islam.

But when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and floats on water it is obviously a giraffe.

Even the Muslims ALL OVER THE WORLD agree that their religion has issues with extremists.


Bush hasn't been alive that long... now cheney on the other hand I can see...

try again, maybe this time with facts. Not conjecture, not racism or a blind hatred of a group. (QUOTE)

1)You obviously can not wrap your brain around the concept of FALSE FLAG TERRORISM. My assertion as I have clearly stated is that Bin Laden and al Queda are assets of rogue elements of the CIA. There is evidence to back this assertion.

2)Many Jews, Catholics and Protestants ALL OVER THE WORLD also agree that their religions have issues with extremists. (or phonies posing as co religionists using these religion's as a false reason to take rash actions for their own political or monetary gain) Such as:

a)The extreme right wing pseudo christians in America who believe that a holy war is being fought in the middle east, and cheered Bushco into these ridiculous confrontations.

b)The lunitic right wing neoCON "Jews" who are hiding behind the Jewish religion that I believe were EXTREMELY instrumental in getting the US into these idiotic wars.

THESE lunitics gave Bush, Cheney and company the political capital needed to engage in two destructive costly wars. 4000 US soldiers dead along with a million innocent Iraqis & Afghanis and trillions of dollars spent from the now bankrupt US economy
Click to expand...
 
jmh423
Click to expand...
TruthersLie said:
strawman, and a piss poor one at that twoof. No one has claimed athat ALL of the terrorism in the world in from Islam.

But when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and floats on water it is obviously a giraffe.

Even the Muslims ALL OVER THE WORLD agree that their religion has issues with extremists.


Bush hasn't been alive that long... now cheney on the other hand I can see...

try again, maybe this time with facts. Not conjecture, not racism or a blind hatred of a group. (QUOTE)

1)You obviously can not wrap your brain around the concept of FALSE FLAG TERRORISM. My assertion as I have clearly stated is that Bin Laden and al Queda are assets of rogue elements of the CIA. There is evidence to back this assertion.

2)Many Jews, Catholics and Protestants ALL OVER THE WORLD also agree that their religions have issues with extremists. (or phonies posing as co religionists using these religion's as a false reason to take rash actions for their own political or monetary gain) Such as:

a)The extreme right wing pseudo christians in America who believe that a holy war is being fought in the middle east, and cheered Bushco into these ridiculous confrontations.

b)The lunitic right wing neoCON "Jews" who are hiding behind the Jewish religion that I believe were EXTREMELY instrumental in getting the US into these idiotic wars.

THESE lunitics gave Bush, Cheney and company the political capital needed to engage in two destructive costly wars. 4000 US soldiers dead along with a million innocent Iraqis & Afghanis and trillions of dollars spent from the now bankrupt US economy
Click to expand...

Do I hear Alex Jones Jr. spread some BS again or is he just a figment of my imagination?
 
Last edited:
jmh423 said:
1)You obviously can not wrap your brain around the concept of FALSE FLAG TERRORISM. My assertion as I have clearly stated is that Bin Laden and al Queda are assets of rogue elements of the CIA. There is evidence to back this assertion.

2)Many Jews, Catholics and Protestants ALL OVER THE WORLD also agree that their religions have issues with extremists. (or phonies posing as co religionists using these religion's as a false reason to take rash actions for their own political or monetary gain) Such as:

a)The extreme right wing pseudo christians in America who believe that a holy war is being fought in the middle east, and cheered Bushco into these ridiculous confrontations.

b)The lunitic right wing neoCON "Jews" who are hiding behind the Jewish religion that I believe were EXTREMELY instrumental in getting the US into these idiotic wars.

THESE lunitics gave Bush, Cheney and company the political capital needed to engage in two destructive costly wars. 4000 US soldiers dead along with a million innocent Iraqis & Afghanis and trillions of dollars spent from the now bankrupt US economy
Click to expand...

Repeating insane, racist nonsense does make it true, for sure.
 
Last edited:
9/11ChewbaccaDefense said:
Do I hear Alex Jones Jr. spread some BS again or is he just a figment of my imagination?
Click to expand...

You know what? I just realised that Alex Jones practises False Flag Journalism. He reports stuff as if he was a Journalist and as if it was true, with the sole purpose of fooling people into buying his merchandise.

Why aren't his fans calling him out on all of this? Because they are a bunch of stupid sheep incapable of thinking for themselves!!!11!1!!!!11!!!:duck:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom