Farewell to All...

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
Noops
Farewell to All...

Before I say goodbye I would like to address some points made in the "White Supremacism - Wake up Canada!" thread.

voice of the damned:

“Well, I don't think there's a babble rule against false-flag theories. Which is a good thing, because they DO happen from time to time, and we shouldn't a priori rule out discussion of them.”

If there is a Babble rule against false-flag theories I'd like to know about it.

“But Noops has been saying since Christchurch happened that this is a false-flag(because the guy was in Turkey when some other terrorist attack happened), and demanding that everyone do research. However, he hasn't provided any links, as far as I know.”

You are correct that I have been saying that the Christchurch killings was a false flag event, but not "because the guy was in Turkey when some other terrorist attack happened".

That is circumstantial evidence to consider, but very important nonetheless.

And he wasn't just "in Turkey when some other terrorist attack happened".

The day he arrived in Turkey, the German Embassy issued a terror alert and shut down its embassy and consulate in Istanbul.

Two days after Tarrant’s arrival, a major terror incident took place in Istanbul, within a few blocks of the German Consulate and Tarrant’s hotel.

One day after the terror incident Tarrant left Turkey.

If you take that incident on its own you may say they were simply coincidences.

Just a coincidence that a terror alert was issued the day Tarrant arrived in Turkey.

And just a coincidence that a terrorist event took place in Istanbul a few blocks from Tarrant's hotel.

And just a coincidence that Tarrant left Turkey the next day.

HOWEVER when you combine those three 'coincidences' with the Christchurch killings attributed to Tarrant you begin to stretch credulity if you say all those events were just a coincidence.

At that point in time you must stop your navel-gazing and begin to come to terms with what is before your eyes.

There are additional pieces of evidence that I haven't mentioned that scream out 'false flag' for the New Zealand killings.

I likely won't be sharing them with you.

Noops

voice of the damned:

"For myself, I'll say that the thing about false-flags is that they're usually designed to benefit the alleged victims of the attack. So, going by that, we're supposed to conclude that the Christchurch attack was somehow planned by Muslims, or Muslim sympathizers, to turn people against anti-Muslim opinion?

Or maybe it's yet another plot to take away everyone's guns?  "

I am not going to offer my opinion as to what its purpose was.
False flags certainly can but are not always designed to benefit the victims of the attack.

lagatta4:

“It got sidetracked by insulting nonsense about the Christchurch mosques masssacres being a false flag attack. That is deeply insulting to the innocent people killed and wounded.”

How is alleging that the attacks was a false flag "deeply insulting to the innocent people killed and wounded."?

Are you perhaps confusing a false flag attack with a hoax attack?

I could readily understand why an allegation that the attacks were a hoax would be "deeply insulting to the innocent people killed and wounded."

But a false flag attack?

Timebandit:

“Agree with lagatta - calling the Christchurch murders a false flag is deeply insulting to victims and survivors. If this is what’s allowable on babble now, if that’s what this board is about, then shut it the fuck down.”

Ditto to what I said to lagatta.

How is alleging that the attacks was a false flag "deeply insulting to the innocent people killed and wounded."?

MegB:

"Noops, you're on shaky ground. Any more of this false flag bullshit and you're done. Closing, as per request."

With all due respect Meg, I find that language offensive, specifically "bullshit".
 

 

   

Noops

I have been a member and supporter of Rabble for over 14 years.

For many of those 14 years I sat on the sidelines, watching, observing and sometimes just taking a break from the site with few contributions.

From the beginning I sensed I was an outsider. I didn't seem to fit here. Babble seemed a bit cliquish. But I persevered, contributing to discussions when I thought I had something of value to say.

I honestly don't know why my recent false flag comment upset so many people here.

It seems the site is much more conservative than I had previously estimated.

If that's the case, so be it.

Clearly I am not wanted here now. I will not hang around, fearful of stepping on any more glass.

I wish everyone here the best going forward.

WWWTT

Had to research what is really meant by false flag

https://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag

Unionist

Noops - if you're still observing - that thread got off on a bad foot, and it's very possible that people misinterpreted your intervention. I've followed your posts for many years. And, in my humble opinion, I'd be grateful if you stuck around and gave your opinion/information as and when you see fit. I don't think we're a conservative clique. But I would like to conserve what we have built here. That includes you.

WWWTT

It’s plausible.  Controversial for sure! I’m a shit disturber myself by nature so I take no offence and even feel that if you never question and doubt, you’ll never be a very interesting person 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

noops, I hope you stay, and you have the right to make an argument for whatever view you might hold...it's just that you have to provide evidence...and in the post that MegB threatened you about, you actually didn't provide much.  It really doesn't prove anything that the man went to Turkey-it's not as though an Islamophobe couldn't find some way to clear Turkish customs. 

Turkey would have nothing to gain by faking an Islamophobic attack in New Zealand.  In Britain, the US, France, maybe Canada, they plausibly could...but New Zealand, as a country, is of no possible stragegic significance to Turkey.  Nor would Turkey have anything to gain by giving the prime minister of New Zealand a chance to look like a global hero of human rights and multiculturalism.  And it's not plausible that the New Zealand government would have staged it themselves-that government had nothing to gain in international terms by becoming the venue for a massacre, and there's no evidence to suggest that the prime minister of that country would have people killed just so she could mourn them.

There's also no strategic or geopolitical advantages to be gained on the part of Russia, China, or the U.S. and its allies from these killings having occurred.

You say you don't wish to discuss possible motive, but it's hard to imagine that you could make a case for a false flag op WITHOUT doing so.  Countries don't stage false flag ops for the hell of it.

I will accept that you are acting out of legitimate intent...but if you're going to make a case for a false flag, it needs to be more of a case than simply stating, without evidence, that the killer doesn't hate Muslims.  

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Noops - if you're still observing - that thread got off on a bad foot, and it's very possible that people misinterpreted your intervention. I've followed your posts for many years. And, in my humble opinion, I'd be grateful if you stuck around and gave your opinion/information as and when you see fit. I don't think we're a conservative clique. But I would like to conserve what we have built here. That includes you.

Next time maybe try giving the "offending" member an oppertunity to address and/or modify their content first.

Unionist

Just before history gets rewritten, let's review what happened:

1. Noops made his "false-flag" claim.

2. A number of babblers were shocked at the way that happened and reacted accordingly. Some asked for source references.

3. The thread became toxic, really fast.

4. Meg closed the thread and cautioned Noops. No action was taken against Noops.

5. NorthReport did the right thing, by reopening a fresh thread on the same (important) subject (white supremacism).

So now, we all have an opportunity to do things better - hopefully without ill-will - and hopefully with Noops continuing to be part of our conversations.

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

So now, we all have an opportunity to do things better - hopefully without ill-will - and hopefully with Noops continuing to be part of our conversations.

And how well is the conversation going now that you PMed Meg to shut it down?

NorthReport's new thread has 5 replies, all from him. Strangely none from you in the half dozen or more posts you've made since he restarted the thread yesterday.  You have a habit of trying to shut down conversations you don't like, wether you're involved in the conversation or not.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And how well is the conversation going now that you PMed Meg to shut it down?

It's pretty much right where it was before Noops shat on it, plus a few more posts from NR.  Given that it was an aimless catch-all for anything "white supremacy" related, I doubt it was ever going to have to be closed for length.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So now, we all have an opportunity to do things better - hopefully without ill-will - and hopefully with Noops continuing to be part of our conversations.

And how well is the conversation going now that you PMed Meg to shut it down?

NorthReport's new thread has 5 replies, all from him. Strangely none from you in the half dozen or more posts you've made since he restarted the thread yesterday.  You have a habit of trying to shut down conversations you don't like, wether you're involved in the conversation or not.

Given that none of Unionist's responses to noops track with the responses you'd expect from someone who wanted the thread he was responding to shut down, I think it's legitimate to expect you to provide proof of that allegation.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, Unionist did literally say:

Quote:
I've sent Meg a PM about this thread, asking her to close it so that we can start over and try again.

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote 

 I think it's legitimate to expect you to provide proof of that allegation.

Yes and no. Providing proof isn’t easy for controversial events or when challenging the icm story lines. 

I always challenge, I also prefer to provide something posters can read to make us think. But sometimes it’s hard if not impossible 

At least an explanation should be provided 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes and no. Providing proof isn’t easy for controversial events or when challenging the icm story lines.

If there's no proof, why assert something must be the truth?  Why believe it?  Noops wasn't asking questions, Noops was stating "facts".

There's no proof that the earth is a flat disc, therefore I don't believe that the earth is a flat disc.

There IS proof that the earth is roughly spherical, like other planets, so I believe the earth is roughly spherical, like other planets.  Even if "the MSM" is the source of that proof.  And no, sorry, I'm not going to go "educate myself" by reading a bunch of k00Ky, moonbat websites whose authority with regard to planetary bodies begins and ends with the fact that they agree that the earth is flat.  There's no shortage of opinions on the internet, and I don't see the appeal of the stupidest of them just because they aren't the MSM.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote 

 I think it's legitimate to expect you to provide proof of that allegation.

Yes and no. Providing proof isn’t easy for controversial events or when challenging the icm story lines. 

I always challenge, I also prefer to provide something posters can read to make us think. But sometimes it’s hard if not impossible 

At least an explanation should be provided 

You're right.  I'll amend "proof" to "strong evidence"

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

Given that none of Unionist's responses to noops track with the responses you'd expect from someone who wanted the thread he was responding to shut down, I think it's legitimate to expect you to provide proof of that allegation.

Mr Magoo beat me to it.

 

 

We're really good here at trying to shut down conversations and topics we don't like or agree with, less so with seeing and understanding the views and perspectives of others.

 

Noops

I asked Meg two simple questions on April 10:

"Can you please explain yourself Meg?

Can you show me where it says in Rabble's T.O.S. I cannot express my opinion of an event that occurred in the world?"

This was her response on April 16:

"When you refer to the Christchurch massacre as a false flag event, you're traveling down the rabbit hole of far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. That isn't acceptable on babble. Maybe you're flying your own false flag - being a right wing conspiracy theorist flying the progressive flag. I don't know. But if you continue in posting such blatant crap that denigrates the white supremacist attack against Muslims in New Zealand, your days on babbl? e <sic> are numbered.

This stuff might pass on Twitter or Facebook, but it doesn't on rabble's social media forum. You want me to explain myself? That language alone tells me so much. I've been a member of rabble and a babble contributor since its first year - 2001 - and have been moderating babble since 2011. Your false flag post violates our editorial policy and babble policy.

There. Done explaining myself. Follow our progressive policy or be banned. If you can't understand why you're on my watch list now, after this explanation, then this is not the place for you to be expressing your opinions. "

 

MegB

First of all, posting PMs isn't done here. That happened once back in the Audra days and it was made clear to all that it wasn't cool. Secondly, I actually did some research on the false flag theories about Christchurch and it was almost entirely conspiracy theorist drivel. As I pointed out in my PM - which you conveniently left out - I have been involved with rabble since 2001 and have been on staff for eight years. I have a pretty good handle on our editorial policies and floating conspiracy theories, particularly on such a sensitive and important issue, isn't allowed. Now, if you actually have a credible source for this, by all means produce a link. Otherwise please do continue with your flounce. 

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yes and no. Providing proof isn’t easy for controversial events or when challenging the icm story lines.

If there's no proof, why assert something must be the truth?  Why believe it?  Noops wasn't asking questions, Noops was stating "facts".

There's no proof that the earth is a flat disc, therefore I don't believe that the earth is a flat disc.

There IS proof that the earth is roughly spherical, like other planets, so I believe the earth is roughly spherical, like other planets.  Even if "the MSM" is the source of that proof.  And no, sorry, I'm not going to go "educate myself" by reading a bunch of k00Ky, moonbat websites whose authority with regard to planetary bodies begins and ends with the fact that they agree that the earth is flat.  There's no shortage of opinions on the internet, and I don't see the appeal of the stupidest of them just because they aren't the MSM.

 

Flat earth syndrome, the example you are using, is actually the most famous conspiracy theory that really did happen. And for centuries among the Catholic faith (if not more).

This can be easily disproven by observing the moon, moon cycles, sun's shape, lengths of day through seasons and angle of the sun/lengths of shadows throughout the seasons as well. All in relation to all of this throughout different latitude locations around the globe. (I know you get it, but I don't like it that you are using it in the negative of how Noops would use it)

But we're not talking about a conspiracy theory that can be easily proven with observations and mathematics. I'm not even saying I cater to Noops theory! I'm saying don't ban/punish the poster for a comment.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

He hasn’t been banned. He hasn’t even been given a time out. He’s been reminded of rabble/babble’s policy and been given fair warning of the consequences of continuing to go against it. I think that’s a fair response. Ball is now in noops court, and he’s responding inappropriately. Quelle surprise. 

This, btw, is a terrific example of an entitled man-child in snit mode. Not uncommon in flounces. 9 points from the Russian judge. Really stuck that landing. 

Martin N.

"An entitled man-child in snit mode". Gotta love it! 

Other than that, Unionist playing constipated hall monitor as usual, Magoo using logic to put her back in place and Meg B sorting it out nicely. For me, reading this stuff is all about learning to play nice with others. Thanks for the help, fellow babblers.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin N. wrote:

"An entitled man-child in snit mode". Gotta love it! 

Other than that, Unionist playing constipated hall monitor as usual, Magoo using logic to put her back in place and Meg B sorting it out nicely. For me, reading this stuff is all about learning to play nice with others. Thanks for the help, fellow babblers.

What would you have had done here?  Clearly noops should not have posted a cryptic "it's a false flag" allegation-and done so in words which implied that it wasn't motivated by Islamophobia, words which clearly had the effect of belittling the losses the Muslim community of New Zealand experienced on that day-without offering any evidence or any suggestions of motive, and it was entirely understandable for MegB to interpret the posts as a form of denial about what happened.

Noops COULD have responded by making it clear that he recognized that Christchurch was a tragedy for the Muslim community there and that their deaths mattered, but chose not to do that.

Paladin1, why is it so important to you to imply that a poster being called out for posting something that goes against forum rules is somehow a "free speech" issue?

And why does it matter to you what Unionist does?  It's not as though he's your personal oppressor.

If a forum has clearly stated rules, as Babble does, we're all obligated to follow those rules.  It's as simple as that.

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

 

Paladin1, why is it so important to you to imply that a poster being called out for posting something that goes against forum rules is somehow a "free speech" issue?

Ken, just so were clear the "free speech" is your words not mine. "Free speech" isn't applicable on this forum because it's a privately owned and operated website, not a government space. Even if it were free speech doesn't mean people can run around saying whatever they want sans consequence- as I'm sure you're aware.

Ken Burch wrote:
And why does it matter to you what Unionist does?  It's not as though he's your personal oppressor.

I'll give you a legitimate answer but first why does it matter to you why it matters to me what unionist does?

Ken Burch wrote:

If a forum has clearly stated rules, as Babble does, we're all obligated to follow those rules.  It's as simple as that.

Lets be honest here Ken. How many times have members here made personal attacks or violated the rules somehow and openly stated "I dont fucking care if I get banned either!"  and nothing happens? Why do some members get away with violating the policies and others don't?

 

All in all I felt obliged to point out how quick members were to close down topic that Noops brought up, with a view to "getting back on track" but what's getting back on track? NorthReport posting more links without any conversation from anyone else? Cause that's all that's happening. As I said, and Sean more elegantly pointed out, we're big on shutting down conversations here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It would appear that Ken was actually addressing Martin N.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It would appear that Ken was actually addressing Martin N.

I was addressing Martin N. for MOST of that post, and Paladin1 at the point at which I mentioned his name.  I wasn't associating Paladin1 with anything in the portion of the post prior to the point at which I specifically referenced him.

MegB

Quote:

 How many times have members here made personal attacks or violated the rules somehow and openly stated "I dont fucking care if I get banned either!"  and nothing happens? Why do some members get away with violating the policies and others don't?

Mostly because I can't be everywhere all the time - babble represents a huge amount of activity and content and we no longer have two moderators working in different time zones - but also because some people I can trust to work it out between themselves and others, not so much. If you were a moderator of many years Paladin you would understand that sometimes a more nuanced approach and a lighter touch is required. I'm not a robot. 

 

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It would appear that Ken was actually addressing Martin N.

I was addressing Martin N. for MOST of that post, and Paladin1 at the point at which I mentioned his name.  I wasn't associating Paladin1 with anything in the portion of the post prior to the point at which I specifically referenced him.

Sorry about that Ken! I apologise for the mix up and not being more observant. Mr Magoo ironically seen it :)

Paladin1

MegB wrote:

Mostly because I can't be everywhere all the time - babble represents a huge amount of activity and content and we no longer have two moderators working in different time zones - but also because some people I can trust to work it out between themselves and others, not so much. If you were a moderator of many years Paladin you would understand that sometimes a more nuanced approach and a lighter touch is required. I'm not a robot. 

 

Of course Meg. I absolutely wasn't critisizing your moderating. Had I really taken an issue, or anyone taken an issue, they would have reported it to the moderators and I'm certian you would have dealt with it. You can't be expected to watch every thread.

I DO think some members are given more chances or treated differently than others in terms of applying the rules but that's something you generally see on all boards and forums. I only bring it up here in response to talking about "the rules being followed" and how it's a fluid thing.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
 

I'll give you a legitimate answer but first why does it matter to you why it matters to me what unionist does? 

Love it.

Paladin1 wrote:
  Lets be honest here Ken. How many times have members here made personal attacks or violated the rules somehow and openly stated "I dont fucking care if I get banned either!"  and nothing happens? Why do some members get away with violating the policies and others don't?  

Not contradicting Meg but there is another reason. Some posters report and others do not. I don't. In the past I have had other reasons for not reporting but now I don't report in part because I understand that babble represents a small portion of Meg's responsibilities at babble. 

Most of the time I consider upsets on the board to be the equivalent of children bickering. It's personality clashes coupled with political differences not trolling. Sometimes it's like a family that should avoid discussing religion and politics. I consider reporting in such circumstances to be the equivalent of running to Mommy. 

Personally I think we have been doing much better at settling our own differences or just moving on which is pretty much what families have to do no matter how disfunctional. 

I have respect for every single person who posts here. I believe that every person is sincere in their beliefs and is at heart a good person who wants what is best for humanity and the Earth. That includes pipeline supporters. 

We shouldn't need Meg for posters we know are not trolls. I'm being a little unfair maybe because I wouldn't have been able to explain why the false flag thing was a problem and Meg has explained it, but I am certain there are other posters who could have expressed the same argument without making the originator feel like they were being personally accused. 

I understand that babble is not supposed to have to deal with progressive 101 arguments. On the other hand I have learned from the links to Quebec history in a nutshell. I learned when Westerners explained why the trans Canada railroad was not welcomed with open arms as a gift. I've learned from Paladin's perspective on gun control.

In my opinion if we believe that people are well-meaning in their posts then even if what they are posting is objectionable the more constructive response is to explain our perspective respectfully rather than attack or report even if it doesn't result in agreement. 

MegB

Paladin, you've weathered some pretty whithering criticism for being part of the military industrial complex. Fair coment here.  But you bring a valued perspective that we need here, and you always express a willingness to learn about what it means to be progressive. That's more important than anyone's particular view on social justice or ideological purity. If we can ever become a truly unified group under so many different banners that seek a better world we need alternative voices.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It would appear that Ken was actually addressing Martin N.

I was addressing Martin N. for MOST of that post, and Paladin1 at the point at which I mentioned his name.  I wasn't associating Paladin1 with anything in the portion of the post prior to the point at which I specifically referenced him.

Sorry about that Ken! I apologise for the mix up and not being more observant. Mr Magoo ironically seen it :)

And actually, noops did "get away" with what he did.  He wasn't banned.  He wasn't suspended.  He was simply given a warning.

Are you saying that, given that, being here as long as he did, noops could not have known why his post, and his refusal to elaborate on things that would naturally have been tied to it, such, at the very least, an admission that it the event was a horrible tragedy for the Muslim community of Christchurch and for Muslims around the world and, also at the very least, a specific statement of who he thought was behind the "false flag" he was alleging and what their motive might have been for staging such a horrific event?

The way noops wrote what he posted, MegB and the other posters who reacted to it had no way of knowing who he was accusing and why-and for all any of the posters who reacted to noops' post knew he could have been implying either that the killings were faked or even that the people of that congregation arranged to have this done to themselves.

Is it really asking so much to expect someone making a "false flag" allegation about something like this to be careful and precise in what that person is and is not saying and who that person is and is not blaming?
 

And is it really a personal attack on a poster to expect such things?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Is it really asking so much to expect someone making a "false flag" allegation about something like this to be careful and precise in what that person is and is not saying and who that person is and is not blaming?

Not at all, IMHO.  The same would go for statements like "sexism is a thing of the past", or "unions abuse workers worse than bosses ever did" or "a man cannot just decide that he's a woman".  Arguments -- not necessarily good ones, mind you -- could be (carefully) made to support those statements, but I don't think a babbler can just drop them into a thread as a fact and expect everyone else to "educate themself".

Also a good time to remember that unanswered questions are an opportunity for further investigation, but they don't constitute "proof" in and of themselves.

-  "who stood to gain the most?"

-  "was that really a coincidence?"

-  "how else can we possibly explain this, then?"

None of the above are "proof" of anything.

And at the risk of being banned for heresy, something appearing in the MSM does not, in and of itself, mean that thing is false.  If only it were that easy.

Noops

MegB wrote:

First of all, posting PMs isn't done here. That happened once back in the Audra days and it was made clear to all that it wasn't cool.

Meg I was not aware of the occurrence that happened in the "Audra days". As far as I know reference to PM posting isn't included (as of today) in either the Babble Policy or Comment Policy. I am sorry and will be sure not to do it again.

Quote:
 As I pointed out in my PM - which you conveniently left out - I have been involved with rabble since 2001 and have been on staff for eight years.

MegB I copied your PM vertbatim, complete with its typo. I did not "conveniently" leave anything out.
Here is the line that I copied from your PM that you alleged I "conveniently left out":

    "I've been a member of rabble and a babble contributor since its first year - 2001 - and have been moderating babble since 2011."

I have read both the Babble Policy and Comment Policy and did not see any policy that I violated.
You personally might not like a viewpoint that I have, but that does not violate Babble's Policy nor Comment Policy.
In fact, the Comment Policy explicitly states: "All viewpoints are welcome".

Noops

Ken Burch wrote:

What would you have had done here?  Clearly noops should not have posted a cryptic "it's a false flag" allegation-and done so in words which implied that it wasn't motivated by Islamophobia, words which clearly had the effect of belittling the losses the Muslim community of New Zealand experienced on that day-without offering any evidence or any suggestions of motive, and it was entirely understandable for MegB to interpret the posts as a form of denial about what happened

Ken, I don't see how my words had the effect of belittling the losses of the Muslim community of New Zealand.
The Muslim community of New Zealand would have been just as devasted had a Muslim committed the terrorist act, or a Buddhist or Jew.
And they would have been just as devasted had the act been a genuine terrorist act or false flag/black op act.

Ken I am fully prepared to provide evidence that shows Christchurch was a black op. I used the term 'false flag' in its generic sense. The terrorist act committed was not a text book or pure false flag.

Tarrant did not act alone, he had accomplices.

Before I provide this evidence I would like to ask members here a few questions that are very important.
How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?
I ask this question for a few reasons.

Ken Burch wrote:
Noops COULD have responded by making it clear that he recognized that Christchurch was a tragedy for the Muslim community there and that their deaths mattered, but chose not to do that.

Just to be perfectly clear now, I fully, unequivocally and genuinely acknowledge that Christchurch was a tragedy for the Muslim community and that the deaths of their fellow Muslims mattered.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?
I ask this question for a few reasons.

Here we go again, folks.

Remember when an embittered ex-colleague murdered a female reporter and a cameraman, and it was all caught on live video?  Here's Noops on that:

Noops wrote:
Aside from the very sloppy marksmanship at point blank range, I am having difficulty accepting the almost total lack of emotion/sadness on the part of Chris Hurst (Allison's boyfriend) and his agreeing to conduct TV interviews just hours after Allison's apparent death.

His 'tweets' are also quite remarkable.
You must catch one of his TV interviews where he proudly displays the photo album that Allison gave him.

Not a hint of grief displayed during the entire interview.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

This ain't Noops' first rodeo.

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?
I ask this question for a few reasons.

Here we go again, folks.

Does this mean I can sign you up as the first to member in this thread
who says he/she does not believe 9/11 was a false flag event Magoo?

Come on and say it. I know you want to.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Noops wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?
I ask this question for a few reasons.

Here we go again, folks.

Does this mean I can sign you up as the first to member in this thread
who says he/she does not believe 9/11 was a false flag event Magoo?

Come on and say it. I know you want to.

 

So...we should feel OBLIGATED to see 9/11 as a "false flag" operation?  

For myself, I've stayed away from the "truther" thing because, in my experience, it has been a discussion largely driven by right-wing libertarians.    

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually undecided on the question of who was responsible for the events of that day-I distrust the motives of most of those who think 9/11 matters more than every other issue in the universe. 

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually undecided on the question of who was responsible for the events of that day-I distrust the motives of most of those who think 9/11 matters more than every other issue in the universe. 

Me too. Sorry, I don't care more about 9/11 than the massacres and murders committed by "our own" states, on a much huger scale.

But - 9/11 did two truly horrible and historic things: 1) It served as a pretext for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and less directly many others since (because now, we're fighting "terrorism"). 2) It heralded a wave of Islamophobia which has never abated since, in the U.S., but frighteningly in Canada as well.

To return to the topic of this thread:

I asked for that previous thread to be closed, because it had quickly become toxic. I did not criticize Noops' false-flag post in any way (even though I do believe that at some point, evidence-based discussion is fundamental), not did I request any sanction against him. I frankly don't mind if from time to time he expresses some thesis that sounds loony to most of us.

Noops - please stop demanding statements of belief from everyone. That's dumb. On the other hand - please do stay. It won't kill you, or us. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually undecided on the question of who was responsible for the events of that day-I distrust the motives of most of those who think 9/11 matters more than every other issue in the universe. 

Me too. Sorry, I don't care more about 9/11 than the massacres and murders committed by "our own" states, on a much huger scale.

But - 9/11 did two truly horrible and historic things: 1) It served as a pretext for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and less directly many others since (because now, we're fighting "terrorism"). 2) It heralded a wave of Islamophobia which has never abated since, in the U.S., but frighteningly in Canada as well.

To return to the topic of this thread:

I asked for that previous thread to be closed, because it had quickly become toxic. I did not criticize Noops' false-flag post in any way (even though I do believe that at some point, evidence-based discussion is fundamental), not did I request any sanction against him. I frankly don't mind if from time to time he expresses some thesis that sounds loony to most of us.

Noops - please stop demanding statements of belief from everyone. That's dumb. On the other hand - please do stay. It won't kill you, or us. 

 

All this is fair enough.

I think there is a point buried here that really could be emphasized.

All viewpoints -- opinions -- are welcome. However, when claiming a fact -- espeically one that is controversial and potentially offensive -- I think the conversation should be evidence-based.

I think it is offensive to come out assert something and then refuse to back it up with evidence. This is not just one person doing this here either. We have some doing this and getting away with it becuase the fact is more popular here and that is a problem.

If you are going to assert something that is not already generally known and accepted by all here then please be willing to provide eveidence, if not in the initial post (ideal) it should come as soon as someone asks for it. Too often people will sail in with not an opinion but an assertion of fact and become angry and attack when someone asks them to defend it.

Noops, Meg has been quite clear that it is okay to present any fact that you can bring evidence to defend -- the problem comes from floating facts championed by right wing people who have never provided credible evidence to back up.

BTW -- I also spent time that I wish I could get back checking into the theory when someone raised it with me on Twitter. It was a mash up of coincidence, poor logic, and imagination. There was nothing substantive there. I spent a couple hours reading various people making the assertion -- and you would think in that time -- over all those posts -- one of them would provide a link to actual evidence if there really were anything to it.

Noops

By nature, I am an introvert. I also hold my cards close to my chest most of the time, online and offline. That's just who I am.
I would ask members to please not second guess what I have to say or what my intentions are here, because those who have in the last few posts have missed the mark.

If I start off by saying little, I do it by design, not because I don't have evidence to back up my statements.
As I said a couple of posts ago, I am fully prepared to present the evidence to back up the claim I made in my first post in the related thread.
But I prefer to do it at my pace, so please just be patient. The less I am antagonized the sooner I will come forward with this evidence.

Ken Burch wrote:

Noops wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?
I ask this question for a few reasons.

Here we go again, folks.

Does this mean I can sign you up as the first to member in this thread
who says he/she does not believe 9/11 was a false flag event Magoo?

Come on and say it. I know you want to.

 

So...we should feel OBLIGATED to see 9/11 as a "false flag" operation?  

Absolutley not!
One reason I asked the question was to simply gauge who my audience is here.
What their level of awareness is with this event.
Because quite frankly my level of awareness about 9/11 was pathetic for many years.
A simple twist of fate caused me to look into it and the rest as they say is history!

A second reason I asked about 9/11 is because the Christchurch event is directly linked to it.

Quote:
For myself, I've stayed away from the "truther" thing because, in my experience, it has been a discussion largely driven by right-wing libertarians.    

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually undecided on the question of who was responsible for the events of that day-I distrust the motives of most of those who think 9/11 matters more than every other issue in the universe.

Thanks for sharing your personal beliefs about the event, however slim the content might actually be.
Of course 9/11 is not the be all and end all of matters going on today in the world, but it has much more of an influence on people's lives than they would first imagine.
Only after understanding what exactly happened on that day and leading up to it, can one appreciate its profundity.

Noops

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually undecided on the question of who was responsible for the events of that day-I distrust the motives of most of those who think 9/11 matters more than every other issue in the universe. 

Me too. Sorry, I don't care more about 9/11 than the massacres and murders committed by "our own" states, on a much huger scale.

This is a very fair perspective to have, provided you truly understand what happened on 9/11.

Quote:
But - 9/11 did two truly horrible and historic things: 1) It served as a pretext for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and less directly many others since (because now, we're fighting "terrorism").

This first "horrible and historic thing" can be broken down itself into two 'things'. The "pre-text for wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and less directly many others since"
is absolutely correct, and the saddest thing of all is that the hundreds of thousands of lives that were taken by the U.S. were entirely unjustified.

The second 'thing' you mentioned, the 'War on Terrorism', which was born as a direct result of 9/11 is based on a false flag event. So the 'War on Terrorism' is a total sham!

Quote:
2) It heralded a wave of Islamophobia which has never abated since, in the U.S., but frighteningly in Canada as well.

Yes true again. And once again the saddest part is that it is all based on an event that had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims committing a terrorist act.

Quote:
To return to the topic of this thread:

I asked for that previous thread to be closed, because it had quickly become toxic. I did not criticize Noops' false-flag post in any way (even though I do believe that at some point, evidence-based discussion is fundamental), not did I request any sanction against him. I frankly don't mind if from time to time he expresses some thesis that sounds loony to most of us.

As I mentioned above, my evidence will follow shortly, provided I don't have to keep defending/explaining myself up to this point.  :)
But if I get side-tracked I will explain myself if need be, before the evidence comes.

Quote:
Noops - please stop demanding statements of belief from everyone. That's dumb. On the other hand - please do stay. It won't kill you, or us. 

Ken Burch got me wrong when he stated "So...we should feel OBLIGATED to see 9/11 as a "false flag" operation?"
And you have got me wrong with the above statement.
I am not demanding any statements of belief from anyone here.
I asked a simple question  "How many members do not believe 9/11 was a false flag event?"
Asking a question and demanding answers about something are completely different.
I followed the question immediately with "I ask this question for a few reasons."

One of the reasons I asked is because (as I mentioned above) the Christchurch event, besides also being a false flag event, is linked to 9/11.
I will explain how it is linked to 9/11 after I present my evidence.