robot rage survivors rr2 rearmed
 
HomeRR ChatMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 LUNCHB0X

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:55 pm

I agree the government has been abusive in certain cases (phone tapping, civilian rights, etc.), but so far you have not provided any good reason why we should believe that the government produced the September 11 attacks. Just because they might have used it, does not mean they were responsible for it.

That is a non sequitur argument.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
jork
He Who Wants it Brung
avatar

Posts : 2056

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:35 pm

LOL, I wonder what a simple topic can lead to...




btw Guest ik what u did...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rrlobbychat.com
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:06 am

Carl wrote:
I agree the government has been abusive in certain cases (phone tapping, civilian rights, etc.), but so far you have not provided any good reason why we should believe that the government produced the September 11 attacks. Just because they might have used it, does not mean they were responsible for it.

That is a non sequitur argument.

Well, I didn't provide any proof but I can give you a few good reasons why not only 9/11 but also the madrid attack and 7/7 london tube bombing are all likely to be flase flag operations (in my opinion) Just when bush loses support and he is impopular, america is under attack by terrorists .. the same thing happens in england where tony blair is widely criticized, how timely and convenient.. False flag operations are very beneficial to the rulers, for many reasons, I think you can think of a few for yourself.

When you say "just beacouse they might have used it, does not mean they were responsable" I am not sure what you mean there.Do you mean they did plan and stage the event but are not responsable? I think you must mean something else they used.I am very glad you agree that governments do act in covert ways and cannot always be trusted blindly, even if time passes and everything I have said should turn out to be wrong.

Some videos I have seen about the london attack were very convincing (also unsettling is the fact that none of these video series are complete .. all have them have been partly eliminated by youtube, search: london bombing flase flag) but
perhaps I am just impressionable or not of sound mind.We can't rule out anything at the this point but I can't shake the feeling something is totally wrong here.I started having that feeling a few years ago, that 's why i began looking into these things, i am aware I totally sound like a conspiracy theorist and I can't blame anyone for that, so feel free to see my suggestions as entertainment.I think that if 9/11 proves to be a fraud, it is reasonable to assume they tried the same trick on other occasions and the "terrorists" are a made up enemy.

I have also been thinking, supose this is all true, terrorists blow themselves up in metro's and suicide into buildings.Doesn't that mean they must really think they have a good reason to do this ?! Assuming they are not undead zombies .. I mean you could call it terror but you could also call it guarillia warfare depending on the perspective and when ever enemies strike like that, shouldn't we , as western countries. at least ask ourselves if we might have done
something to provoke such attacks ? Howcome this is never discussed on the news ? and no one even wonders about these things?




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:27 am

2D4 wrote:
Well, I didn't provide any proof but I can give you a few good reasons why not only 9/11 but also the madrid attack and 7/7 london tube bombing are all likely to be flase flag operations (in my opinion) Just when bush loses support and he is impopular, america is under attack by terrorists .. the same thing happens in england where tony blair is widely criticized, how timely and convenient.. False flag operations are very beneficial to the rulers, for many reasons, I think you can think of a few for yourself.

If you check out approval ratings for listed presidents ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating ), you would find that the average approval rating lies around 54%. George W. Bush, right before September 11, had an approval rating of about 51% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush ), which is not exactly very low. In fact, his ratings steadily declined closely after September 11 with the continuation of the Iraq War initiated by his administration.

2D4 wrote:
When you say "just beacouse they might have used it, does not mean they were responsable" I am not sure what you mean there.Do you mean they did plan and stage the event but are not responsable? I think you must mean something else they used.I am very glad you agree that governments do act in covert ways and cannot always be trusted blindly, even if time passes and everything I have said should turn out to be wrong.

Once again, you are saying that this might all "turn out to be wrong" with the passage of time, but how exactly can it "turn out to be wrong" if I have provided you with the available evidence and you continue to cling to this blind theory? If they had planned and staged the event then they would obviously be responsible. What I meant that, just because they might have "benefited" from its effects on the short term, does not mean that they carried out the attacks.

2D4 wrote:
Some videos I have seen about the london attack were very convincing (also unsettling is the fact that none of these video series are complete .. all have them have been partly eliminated by youtube, search: london bombing flase flag) but
perhaps I am just impressionable or not of sound mind.

I don't think you are unsound of mind, but being somewhat unreasonable by favoring a theory that offers no conclusive justification or evidence.

2D4 wrote:
We can't rule out anything at the this point but I can't shake the feeling something is totally wrong here.I started having that feeling a few years ago, that 's why i began looking into these things, i am aware I totally sound like a conspiracy theorist and I can't blame anyone for that, so feel free to see my suggestions as entertainment.I think that if 9/11 proves to be a fraud, it is reasonable to assume they tried the same trick on other occasions and the "terrorists" are a made up enemy.

Where does this feeling come from? Does it actually have a rational source, or is it just because you placed belief in these "theories" for such a long time? And how do you assume the September 11 attacks can be "proven" to be a fraud, when I have already provided you the available evidence but you refuse to accept its conclusions? What can I do to convince you if it cannot be done with evidence or reasoning? What is there to say that has not been said?

2D4 wrote:
I have also been thinking, supose this is all true, terrorists blow themselves up in metro's and suicide into buildings.Doesn't that mean they must really think they have a good reason to do this ?! Assuming they are not undead zombies .. I mean you could call it terror but you could also call it guarillia warfare depending on the perspective and when ever enemies strike like that, shouldn't we , as western countries. at least ask ourselves if we might have done something to provoke such attacks ? Howcome this is never discussed on the news ? and no one even wonders about these things?

Here you can find some motivations for Islamic terrorism (not all Muslims concur with these beliefs, mind you, just a small portion of extremists within the population): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Motivations_and_Islamic_terrorism. It's their interpretation of Islam. Twisted and terrible, I know. The Qur'an does not preach this kind of violence against innocent people. They believe they are carrying out Allah's work. Recruits of militant groups are brainwashed into believing what their superiors tell them, which allow them to further their own political goals at the cost of other people's lives.

What made people favor Stalin? What made people favor Hitler? What made people favor all those terrible men throughout history?

Indoctrination is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned, which means that they can be taught to believe in anything for the most part. Fanaticism is the curse of the human mind.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:08 am

It seems you have comfortably barricaded yourself in your juridical trenches again. I have told you before what I think about the usefulness of that type of conversation, besides, responding to each other and trying to prove and disprove every single point back and forth is tedious and too much work.If you want me to respond to every single point you make I suggest you start paying me a fee, to compensate for the hours that go into that, I have paypal.

I want to remind you again that my purpose is not to prove or disprove anything but it does not seem to get through to you.How can you keep acusing me of trying to prove something when I have allready stated I am not ? I think since these are my statements I should be the one to decide what kind of point I am trying to make.

If you look at contents #2 in your own link about the motivations of the supposed terrorists, you will see a list of what seem to me as fairly valid reasons to use force of any kind.Your story about fanatism is just another asumption, by my standards.

I do not share your idea that you have provided any substancial, undeniable evidence.I therefore disagree with you.As soon as you do ,I will be happy to admit to anything.As you should notice, I talk about the things I am personally convinced of, it does not mean it is therefore fact of life.You should realize the same thing applies to you ! but I will respectfully leave that up to you.

Since you have not responded to my question earlier I will repeat it and hope you will answer it this time: Question (to Carl) : Do you mind if we disagree ? (It's a question)

You know as well as anyone that facts can be misrepresented, bend or twisted, numbers can be changed, testimonies falsified, people can be bought or silenced.Do you not believe the government has the resources and influence to be able to do that ? Well I do.I do not take anything I see on the internet as fact, even wikipedia is blatantly wrong sometime.


*Note*

Any sentence in this text
has the words: "In my opinion"
added to it but for the purpose
of downsizing the transcript,
this has to be added mentally.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2543

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:09 am

Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:13 am

Haha. okey good point.

By the way, is that a pyramid with an all seeing eye next to the daft punk guys ?




Back to top Go down
View user profile
jork
He Who Wants it Brung
avatar

Posts : 2056

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:46 am

No, it's like Daft Punk's stage.



By the way, is Carl G. W. Bush?




btw Guest ik what u did...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rrlobbychat.com
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:16 pm

jork wrote:
No, it's like Daft Punk's stage.



By the way, is Carl G. W. Bush?

Absolotely not .. Carl actually has an IQ above 80 and he also apears to know what he is talking about.These two things make it impossible for him to be G.W. Bush.It's always fun to beat around the Bush Smile

Very kool stage .. and I like Daft Punk, one of my favorite artists.I do think the triangle theme is a little apparent .. I wonder if they had any intentions with that.. o I see you have the image from a site called conspirazzi .com ? lol




Back to top Go down
View user profile
jork
He Who Wants it Brung
avatar

Posts : 2056

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:36 pm

lmao, I knew google was conspiracy.




btw Guest ik what u did...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rrlobbychat.com
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2543

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:43 pm

They chose a pyramid because it makes a lot of sense. They can put screens on so everyone can see it and the have a little roof and a good vantage point.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:57 pm

jork wrote:
lmao, I knew google was conspiracy.

where does anyone say anything about google? or are you bringing a new idea to our attention ? ( I am open to anything)


IN GOD I TRUST wrote:
They chose a pyramid because it makes a lot of sense. They can put screens on so everyone can see it and the have a little roof and a good vantage point.

Offcourse .. it's all just a coincidence .. have no worries and go to sleep (that is actually a good idea)
Personally I am suspicious when ever I see a few things: Pyramids or triangles, anything or anyone displayed with one eye, checkered floors , and women in red clothes.The one eye is the most significant (notice the image of the one eyed bot on the top of this page .. ).You are right tho, it looks cool and it's a good design and vantage point.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:42 pm

2D4 wrote:
It seems you have comfortably barricaded yourself in your juridical trenches again. I have told you before what I think about the usefulness of that type of conversation, besides, responding to each other and trying to prove and disprove every single point back and forth is tedious and too much work.If you want me to respond to every single point you make I suggest you start paying me a fee, to compensate for the hours that go into that, I have paypal.

Sorry pal, don't have the money. Smile

2D4 wrote:
I want to remind you again that my purpose is not to prove or disprove anything but it does not seem to get through to you.How can you keep acusing me of trying to prove something when I have allready stated I am not ? I think since these are my statements I should be the one to decide what kind of point I am trying to make.

I'm not accusing you of claiming to prove your theory, we already established that. What I'm saying is that, based on all the reasonable evidence and arguments we have, we can draw the conclusion that the September 11 attacks were not produced by the American government. Sorry if this was interpreted as otherwise.

2D4 wrote:
If you look at contents #2 in your own link about the motivations of the supposed terrorists, you will see a list of what seem to me as fairly valid reasons to use force of any kind.Your story about fanatism is just another asumption, by my standards.

I believe you should focus more on the Ideology section of Motivations for Islamic Terrorism. You are being naive. Fanaticism has been a major aspect of human history over the centuries. Just look at the hotbed of hypernationalism that Europe once was. Fanaticism comes from extreme religious or political cause. Naturally, most of us here who live in relatively safe havens of the modern world seem to take it for granted.

The Punic Wars, the Gallic Wars, the Wars of the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Conquests, the Crusades, the English-French Wars, the Hundred Years Wars, the Thirty Year's War, the English Civil Wars, the Seven Years' War, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II... The list is endless, and it stands alongside the atrocities commited that do not fall under wars. You believe that such things as Nazism did not exist?

Islamic terrorists justify their attacks from moral outrage at perceived attacks against Islam and their sacred values. Of course, suicide attacks go one step further. Heard of the Kamikaze bombings in World War II? Heard of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka? You can see this page for more information: Suicide Attacks.

For us living in comfortable and safe lives, such things as fanaticism and violence seem distant, almost unreal. But they are there. What seems terrible for you, seems normal for many people living in these regions of conflict. I've been there, though you may have not.

2D4 wrote:
I do not share your idea that you have provided any substancial, undeniable evidence.I therefore disagree with you.As soon as you do ,I will be happy to admit to anything.As you should notice, I talk about the things I am personally convinced of, it does not mean it is therefore fact of life.You should realize the same thing applies to you ! but I will respectfully leave that up to you.

I do not understand the point you are attempting to make with this statement. All that I said was that any critical, reasonable, logical, and unbiased analysis of this discussion would reveal that such claims are baseless and cannot be justified.

2D4 wrote:
Since you have not responded to my question earlier I will repeat it and hope you will answer it this time: Question (to Carl) : Do you mind if we disagree ? (It's a question)

What do you mean by "do you mind"? If you mean will I hate you for it, then of course not.

2D4 wrote:
You know as well as anyone that facts can be misrepresented, bend or twisted, numbers can be changed, testimonies falsified, people can be bought or silenced.Do you not believe the government has the resources and influence to be able to do that ? Well I do.I do not take anything I see on the internet as fact, even wikipedia is blatantly wrong sometime.

I know that Wikipedia (as can be said for any other source) is not immune to inaccuracy or factual error, but it provides references and is a good source of open information. I also provided you with other sources, it's not the only one I used. I understand that facts, numbers, and testimonies can be falsified, but the sheer amount of sources from so many places is the best we can do. Furthermore, no proper claims have been made to contradict these facts that cannot be rebutted themselves. You could as well say that everything we know about science is wrong. Will that help? No.

You have discovered my true identity. I am George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, serving from 2001 to 2009. My cover has been blown.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:30 am

Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
It seems you have comfortably barricaded yourself in your juridical trenches again. I have told you before what I think about the usefulness of that type of conversation, besides, responding to each other and trying to prove and disprove every single point back and forth is tedious and too much work.If you want me to respond to every single point you make I suggest you start paying me a fee, to compensate for the hours that go into that, I have paypal.

Sorry pal, don't have the money. Smile

Okey pal , you get this one on the house Smile (not the white house, obviously)

2D4 wrote:
I want to remind you again that my purpose is not to prove or disprove anything but it does not seem to get through to you.How can you keep acusing me of trying to prove something when I have allready stated I am not ? I think since these are my statements I should be the one to decide what kind of point I am trying to make.

I'm not accusing you of claiming to prove your theory, we already established that. What I'm saying is that, based on all the reasonable evidence and arguments we have, we can draw the conclusion that the September 11 attacks were not produced by the American government. Sorry if this was interpreted as otherwise. [/quote]

I do not agree at all .. Who do you mean by "we" ? You seem to have drawn conclusions and you can establish all you want but you have no right to speak for me !

2D4 wrote:
If you look at contents #2 in your own link about the motivations of the supposed terrorists, you will see a list of what seem to me as fairly valid reasons to use force of any kind.Your story about fanatism is just another asumption, by my standards.

I believe you should focus more on the Ideology section of Motivations for Islamic Terrorism. You are being naive. Fanaticism has been a major aspect of human history over the centuries. Just look at the hotbed of hypernationalism that Europe once was. Fanaticism comes from extreme religious or political cause. Naturally, most of us here who live in relatively safe havens of the modern world seem to take it for granted. [/quote]

A matter of opinion .. my opinion your opinion .. it's all just a guess

The Punic Wars, the Gallic Wars, the Wars of the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Conquests, the Crusades, the English-French Wars, the Hundred Years Wars, the Thirty Year's War, the English Civil Wars, the Seven Years' War, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II... The list is endless, and it stands alongside the atrocities commited that do not fall under wars. You believe that such things as Nazism did not exist?[/quote]

Why would you asume I deny there is such a thing as nazism or fanatism ? I never claimed it does not exist in general.I only said the motive could be something else.Also, remember that I do not believe the fabricated terrorists did it, so the motive is another since I asume it is done by another group of people.

Islamic terrorists justify their attacks from moral outrage at perceived attacks against Islam and their sacred values. Of course, suicide attacks go one step further. Heard of the Kamikaze bombings in World War II? Heard of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka? You can see this page for more information: Suicide Attacks.
[/quote]

I am aware this exists and is a possibility.

For us living in comfortable and safe lives, such things as fanaticism and violence seem distant, almost unreal. But they are there. What seems terrible for you, seems normal for many people living in these regions of conflict. I've been there, though you may have not.[/quote]

Can you specify where you have been ? So we can get a better idea.

2D4 wrote:
I do not share your idea that you have provided any substancial, undeniable evidence.I therefore disagree with you.As soon as you do ,I will be happy to admit to anything.As you should notice, I talk about the things I am personally convinced of, it does not mean it is therefore fact of life.You should realize the same thing applies to you ! but I will respectfully leave that up to you.

I do not understand the point you are attempting to make with this statement. All that I said was that any critical, reasonable, logical, and unbiased analysis of this discussion would reveal that such claims are baseless and cannot be justified. [/quote]

I don't believe you, sorry .. you know fairly well what point I am trying to make.You seem to understand anything else I write, so what is not clear about this ? Let me put it this way: I disagree with your assumption that you have provided any evidence that 9/11 could not possibly have been a false flag op.It does not mean that this is the truth .. it just means I disagree.

2D4 wrote:
Since you have not responded to my question earlier I will repeat it and hope you will answer it this time: Question (to Carl) : Do you mind if we disagree ? (It's a question)

What do you mean by "do you mind"? If you mean will I hate you for it, then of course not. [/quote]

It means what it means, simple as that.Do you mind or not ? If I would ask you, do you mind if I use your jacket as an ashtray ? You would be able to answer that right ? A simple yes or no will do fine.

2D4 wrote:
You know as well as anyone that facts can be misrepresented, bend or twisted, numbers can be changed, testimonies falsified, people can be bought or silenced.Do you not believe the government has the resources and influence to be able to do that ? Well I do.I do not take anything I see on the internet as fact, even wikipedia is blatantly wrong sometime.

I know that Wikipedia (as can be said for any other source) is not immune to inaccuracy or factual error, but it provides references and is a good source of open information. I also provided you with other sources, it's not the only one I used. I understand that facts, numbers, and testimonies can be falsified, but the sheer amount of sources from so many places is the best we can do. Furthermore, no proper claims have been made to contradict these facts that cannot be rebutted themselves. You could as well say that everything we know about science is wrong. Will that help? No.
[/quote]

You are right, that doesn't help because it isn't true.Have you checked all the claims in favor of my position ? and have you heard all the people that where there that day and say the same thing ? You are not scientific and objective at all in my opinion, you just use the concept of science to prove an assumption you had to begin with.

You have discovered my true identity. I am George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, serving from 2001 to 2009. My cover has been blown.[/quote]

Dam Smile you fooled me again !




Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:59 am

I was kinda enjoying the break from the legal dispute on the 9/11 attack and just babbling about lighthearted subjects like pyramids Smile

So, Jork and IGIT .. Please don't leave this page !! (scroll back to my response on daft punk)



In the land of the blind.The one eyed is king (taken this snapshot from the conspirazzi page Jork used for the daft punk pyramid but it was intended there as just a random banner)






Last edited by 2D4 on Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2543

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:28 am

ok... I feel sorry for you 2d4. That's as crazy as me being afraid of squares, cubes, tile flooring, and dogs that have grey fur.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:44 am

IN GOD I TRUST wrote:
ok... I feel sorry for you 2d4. That's as crazy as me being afraid of squares, cubes, tile flooring, and dogs that have grey fur.

You are afraid of all these things ?? and you still have pity on me ! Wow. I understand the anxiety you feel for the first three: they all have the same shape but the dog eludes me .. I agree .. it is AT LEAST as crazy as me




Back to top Go down
View user profile
jork
He Who Wants it Brung
avatar

Posts : 2056

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:32 pm

2D4 wrote:
jork wrote:
lmao, I knew google was conspiracy.

where does anyone say anything about google? or are you bringing a new idea to our attention ? ( I am open to anything)
I used Google search to find that picture.




btw Guest ik what u did...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rrlobbychat.com
digit
Add mint
avatar

Posts : 2543

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:34 pm

Sorry, I meant to say it would be as crazy...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:48 pm

jork wrote:
2D4 wrote:
jork wrote:
lmao, I knew google was conspiracy.

where does anyone say anything about google? or are you bringing a new idea to our attention ? ( I am open to anything)
I used Google search to find that picture.

Okay .. I used my keyboard to type this.In fact, I use a lot of things everyday ..




Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:49 pm

IN GOD I TRUST wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say it would be as crazy...

I know, but this had so much more entertainment-value Smile




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:55 am

Sorry I haven't been online for a while, I was on a trip to Eastern Canada, visiting for the most part the Québec region.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
I want to remind you again that my purpose is not to prove or disprove anything but it does not seem to get through to you.How can you keep acusing me of trying to prove something when I have allready stated I am not ? I think since these are my statements I should be the one to decide what kind of point I am trying to make.
I'm not accusing you of claiming to prove your theory, we already established that. What I'm saying is that, based on all the reasonable evidence and arguments we have, we can draw the conclusion that the September 11 attacks were not produced by the American government. Sorry if this was interpreted as otherwise.
I do not agree at all .. Who do you mean by "we" ? You seem to have drawn conclusions and you can establish all you want but you have no right to speak for me !

I was using the inclusive "we" in the first sentence, and the exclusive "we" in the second sentence. These have different meanings.

Don't become too agitated from misunderstanding a statement.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
If you look at contents #2 in your own link about the motivations of the supposed terrorists, you will see a list of what seem to me as fairly valid reasons to use force of any kind.Your story about fanatism is just another asumption, by my standards.
I believe you should focus more on the Ideology section of Motivations for Islamic Terrorism. You are being naive. Fanaticism has been a major aspect of human history over the centuries. Just look at the hotbed of hypernationalism that Europe once was. Fanaticism comes from extreme religious or political cause. Naturally, most of us here who live in relatively safe havens of the modern world seem to take it for granted.
A matter of opinion .. my opinion your opinion .. it's all just a guess

What opinion exactly? Your mindset is fallacious in any reasonable discussion. You are content to just lie back, despite the arguments being produced against your case, saying "it's all just a guess" as your only defence. I'm sure you can convince a lot of people to agree with a position using that excuse.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
The Punic Wars, the Gallic Wars, the Wars of the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Conquests, the Crusades, the English-French Wars, the Hundred Years Wars, the Thirty Year's War, the English Civil Wars, the Seven Years' War, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II... The list is endless, and it stands alongside the atrocities commited that do not fall under wars. You believe that such things as Nazism did not exist?
Why would you asume I deny there is such a thing as nazism or fanatism ? I never claimed it does not exist in general.I only said the motive could be something else.Also, remember that I do not believe the fabricated terrorists did it, so the motive is another since I asume it is done by another group of people.

It seemed that you were under the impression that fanaticism could not be carried out in the name of religion.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
Islamic terrorists justify their attacks from moral outrage at perceived attacks against Islam and their sacred values. Of course, suicide attacks go one step further. Heard of the Kamikaze bombings in World War II? Heard of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka? You can see this page for more information: Suicide Attacks.
I am aware this exists and is a possibility.

Good. These kinds of attacks exemplify those commited through Islamic terrorism under religious and ideological beliefs.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
For us living in comfortable and safe lives, such things as fanaticism and violence seem distant, almost unreal. But they are there. What seems terrible for you, seems normal for many people living in these regions of conflict. I've been there, though you may have not.
Can you specify where you have been ? So we can get a better idea.

Venezuela, with fanatic chavistas supporting the left-wing political ideology of Hugo Chávez. I was born and raised in Venezuela. In fact, the reason we left was precisely because of the lack of security and the rise of violence that has been taking place over the last decade. The streets there are some of the most dangerous places in the world. Every week more than 100 people are killed in Caracas, the most violent city in Latin America. The majority are victims of street violence and stray bullets.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
I do not share your idea that you have provided any substancial, undeniable evidence.I therefore disagree with you.As soon as you do ,I will be happy to admit to anything.As you should notice, I talk about the things I am personally convinced of, it does not mean it is therefore fact of life.You should realize the same thing applies to you ! but I will respectfully leave that up to you.
I do not understand the point you are attempting to make with this statement. All that I said was that any critical, reasonable, logical, and unbiased analysis of this discussion would reveal that such claims are baseless and cannot be justified.
I don't believe you, sorry .. you know fairly well what point I am trying to make.You seem to understand anything else I write, so what is not clear about this ? Let me put it this way: I disagree with your assumption that you have provided any evidence that 9/11 could not possibly have been a false flag op.It does not mean that this is the truth .. it just means I disagree.

Once again, you have failed to grasp the point. I never claimed to have absolute proof to refute the possibility of false September 11 attacks. This argument was made at debunking your claims that you could support your side of the case. This assumption is where your whole case begins to fall apart.

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
Since you have not responded to my question earlier I will repeat it and hope you will answer it this time: Question (to Carl) : Do you mind if we disagree ? (It's a question)
What do you mean by "do you mind"? If you mean will I hate you for it, then of course not.
It means what it means, simple as that.Do you mind or not ? If I would ask you, do you mind if I use your jacket as an ashtray ? You would be able to answer that right ? A simple yes or no will do fine.

In this context, the phrase do you mind has the meaning of do you object to. Your question makes no clear sense, and is completely pointless to the discussion. Object in what manner, exactly? Any two opposing positions in any discussion must object to one another at least to some degree.

Does that answer your condescending question?

2D4 wrote:
Carl wrote:
2D4 wrote:
You know as well as anyone that facts can be misrepresented, bend or twisted, numbers can be changed, testimonies falsified, people can be bought or silenced.Do you not believe the government has the resources and influence to be able to do that ? Well I do.I do not take anything I see on the internet as fact, even wikipedia is blatantly wrong sometime.
I know that Wikipedia (as can be said for any other source) is not immune to inaccuracy or factual error, but it provides references and is a good source of open information. I also provided you with other sources, it's not the only one I used. I understand that facts, numbers, and testimonies can be falsified, but the sheer amount of sources from so many places is the best we can do. Furthermore, no proper claims have been made to contradict these facts that cannot be rebutted themselves. You could as well say that everything we know about science is wrong. Will that help? No.
You are right, that doesn't help because it isn't true.Have you checked all the claims in favor of my position ? and have you heard all the people that where there that day and say the same thing ? You are not scientific and objective at all in my opinion, you just use the concept of science to prove an assumption you had to begin with.

Have you checked all the claims in favor of my position? So far, according to what you have said and provided me with, yes.
Have you heard all the people that where there that day and say the same thing? No, because that is impossible. That is a childish assumption of your part.
You are not scientific and objective at all in my opinion, you just use the concept of science to prove an assumption you had to begin with. How?

I am making assumptions based on the information available, which means drawing reasonable conclusions based on proper arguments and conclusive evidence. You have not managed to make a solid defence to your claim that I am not being objective. That is just an empty claim like any other.

In any case, it would be you who should be accused of pure biased assumption. This is a quote from one of your previous responses: Also, remember that I do not believe the fabricated terrorists did it, so the motive is another since I asume it is done by another group of people.

In addition, I would suggest that you write your posts using the correct quote tags.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:54 am

The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, however hard you are trying to make me do so.I simply have an opinion.I am also not trying to disprove your claims or opinions, how ever much you are trying to tell me I am.I see no grounds for continuing this conversation, I just don't agree with you, there is nothing you can do about that.

When you say I sound agitated, well .. I get a little irritated when people start going "we" even though it's clear it's just you who is sitting there typing this stuff.You don't exactly come across as a buddhist monk yourself, calling me childish and what ever.We do not agree, grow up and live with it.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Carl
RR Pro
avatar

Posts : 374

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:42 am

2D4 wrote:
The difference between us is that I am not claiming anything, however hard you are trying to make me do so.I simply have an opinion.I am also not trying to disprove your claims or opinions, how ever much you are trying to tell me I am.I see no grounds for continuing this conversation, I just don't agree with you, there is nothing you can do about that.

I know you do not agree with me, and I know I cannot force you to change that opinion. That undermines the whole point of a discussion. If you want to be a blind, inattentive, and oblivious believer of these conspiracy "theories" that is entirely up to you. I defend my case with evidence, you with nothing.

2D4 wrote:
When you say I sound agitated, well .. I get a little irritated when people start going "we" even though it's clear it's just you who is sitting there typing this stuff.You don't exactly come across as a buddhist monk yourself, calling me childish and what ever.We do not agree, grow up and live with it.

No kidding, because I'm sure that I said somewhere that there are a bunch of people typing this right now. I called your "argument" childish because you assume that, since no one can interview every single person that was there that day (which is impossible in any case), means that it cannot be known what happened.

Grow up and live with it? You are the one who continues to reply to my posts as if making some sort of point that will support your side of the case. If you have found any real arguments to support your case, then do so. If you have not, at least be aware that you are not contributing anything to this conversation.

I would also suggest that you check out this channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

Here are two more links:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html


Back to top Go down
View user profile
2D4
Critique Extraordinaire
avatar

Posts : 3451

PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:41 am

You really don't even read what I write here do you ? I have no "case" ! I told you that before, I just have an opinion.I am not trying to make a case, you are forcing a case on me .. I don't want your case, you can keep it !.I do not even claim to know what happened.Last time I will say this now ..

This is why I asked your repeatedly : Do you mind if we disagree ? (which you did not want to answer) Because it is very apparent to me you really do mind the fact that we disagree but the same does not apply to me ! I do not mind we do not share the same point of view at all.


If you cannot accept and respect the fact someone else has another opinion then you have, then that leaves no room for really any kind of conversation.




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: LUNCHB0X   

Back to top Go down
 
LUNCHB0X
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Robot Rage Survivors Forums :: Robot Rage :: Robot Rage - General Talk-
Jump to: