Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cynthia McKinney, Monday 8th March

Yes, thanks, we'd established she's a good person (altho she's cosied up to the liberal regime in Saudi a couple of times, as the lesser of two evils I assume). Quite what relevance this has to 9/11 is beyond me tho. No one here is saying she's a bad person.
 
No-one is attacking her integrity, apart from Jazz, who said, originally, that she said 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation, but is now only saying that he thinks she thinks that it was a false flag, but she won't say so out loud. That she's covering up the cover up, so to speak.

So you wind your neck in.
 
This thread is about the Cynthia McKinney meeting the other night.
Her integrity is being attacked here, purely because she has the temerity
to ask the tough questions that need asking.

Cynthia McKinney takes on war criminal Donald Rumsfeld
(8 minutes 57 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=eootfzAhAoU

Integrity certainly is under attack, yes. But it's the (putative) integrity of Jazzz, someone who's been caught, not for the first time, pulling stories out of his arse. It may be that, aside from the main thrust of butchersapron's questioning, a few people have made disparaging comments about the whole "troofer" thing, but I think your attempt to paint a little brawling in the stands as somehow undermining of the point that Jazzz cannot give straight answers to even simple yes/no questions is disingenuous, to put it charitably.

Whatever good works this woman does, it's doesn't make her other views any more credible. What also goes a long way to making the views of someone most of us will never have heard of LESS credible is the kind of ducking and diving, evasion, and debating gamesmanship being indulged in by her supporters here.
 
existentialist called her a fruitloop and conspiraloon, when i suggested he/she watch the video of Cythia`s speech himself/herself, rather than
get third party reports. What Cynthia said was important for people to hear for themselves, rather that isolated sentences being quoted here, which
can be taken out of context. Unfortunately i didn`t make a transcription of her speech myself, so if people are interested, they should wait to hear/watch/read
it for themselves. That is unless they feel too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions that they are too scared
to think about themselves - worried that it might shatter their belief systems.
As i stated before, one point she made was that as a black person she knows when she is being lied to by the government, and she knows that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is lie upon lie upon lie.
 
existentialist called her a fruitloop and conspiraloon, when i suggested he/she watch the video of Cythia`s speech himself/herself, rather than
get third party reports. What Cynthia said was important for people to hear for themselves, rather that isolated sentences being quoted here, which
can be taken out of context.
It always is. It's always the same - "you have to listen to the whole message to be able to truly understand it".

I've done it. It was a futile, pointless, frustrating, but sometimes unintentionally humorous waste of about an hour of my life. It was a man, rambling on and repeating himself endlessly, without ever once being able to cite positive, hard facts - indeed, anything other than conjecture from a few appeals-to-authority PhDs and so on.

I've taken a peek at a few others, since, and seen nothing to convince me that they've got any better. And, if Einstein was able to convey the meaning of his special theory of relativity without recourse to YouTube, I can't see why the 9/11 mob find it so difficult to convey theirs, given that it should - if you believe the frothings of Jazzz et al - be very straightforward to do so.

And if I impugn the credibility of McKinney by suggesting that she supports a cause which appears incapable of explaining itself, and just disappears up its own backside in a frenzy of circular argument and invective against its critics, then that doesn't necessarily I mean that she doesn't help old ladies across the road and put little bows on the heads of kittens.

Unfortunately i didn`t make a transcription of her speech myself, so if people are interested, they should wait to hear/watch/read
it for themselves.
If she's any good as a speechmaker, someone should have been able to summarise it into a few themed headings. If that isn't possible, it was probably a rambling, incoherent effort.

That is unless they feel too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions that they are too scared
to think about themselves - worried that it might shatter their belief systems.
Nice false dichotomy: "The only reason anyone would not watch this video is if they felt, er, 'too uncomfortable that a prominent figure on the USA Left/Green wing, is asking questions', and not just any questions but questions 'that they are too scared to think about themselves'"

Not just any false dichotomy, but a DOUBLE FALSE DICHOTOMY.

There should be some kind of applause emoticon.

As i stated before, one point she made was that as a black person she knows when she is being lied to by the government, and she knows that the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory is lie upon lie upon lie.

"Oooh, and let's play a quick race card, just to really nail those non-believers and their crazy ideas".
 
No, he said that the video was a 'conspiraloon puff piece', and was actually commenting on the norm of people such as yourself saying 'Watch this person saying something', as opposed to proving any actual evidence of what may or may not have happened.

But then you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties, or are simply choosing to ignore what people are saying, and are incapable of seeing that between swallowing the 9/11 Commission completely and saying 'It was a false flag op' there is, in fact, a huge amount of space to say 'Yes it should be reinvestigated.'

The only problem with reinvestigating it, is that people like jazz and presumably yourself (I won't speak for CM, unlike Jazz) already have a fixed idea of what the outcome should be, as opposed to being prepared to accept that it wasn't a false flag op, so the question then becomes 'If you already know what the result will be, what's the point in calling for an investigation you'll disagree with if it's findings don't match your prejudice?'
 
Cynthia said that people should research Operation Northwoods.
If any of you guys haven`t look into it, i recommend you do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It indicates the mindset of the military-industrial complex. I know some of you refuse to accept that anyone in the US power structure would hurt their own people, but unfortunately they do bad, evil things. Ask people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Laos .... all over the world in fact.
 
Cynthia said that people should research Operation Northwoods.
If any of you guys haven`t look into it, i recommend you do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It indicates the mindset of the military-industrial complex. I know some of you refuse to accept that anyone in the US power structure would hurt their own people, but unfortunately they do bad, evil things. Ask people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Laos .... all over the world in fact.
What's any of this got to do with Jazzz being well and truly caught out in misrepresenting his and Cynthia McKinney's views? Shouldn't you be hectoring HIM?

ETA: and why on earth should the fact that the CIA carried out a "false flag" operation in 1962 (FORTY YEARS before 9/11) have any bearing on whether or not 9/11 was a "false flag" operation?

Are you really so foolish as to think that anyone is going to go "Ah yes, of COURSE. They did one in '62, so it was inevitable that they'd have to do another one, if only to have some shore stories to tell at the 40th Reunion Dinner of the CIA False Flag Operations In 1962 Working Group. Yeah, that'd be kewl!"?
 
The only problem with reinvestigating it, is that people like jazz and presumably yourself (I won't speak for CM, unlike Jazz) already have a fixed idea of what the outcome should be, as opposed to being prepared to accept that it wasn't a false flag op, so the question then becomes 'If you already know what the result will be, what's the point in calling for an investigation you'll disagree with if it's findings don't match your prejudice?'


I don`t know exactly what happened on 911, what i do know is that the official Conspiracy Theory is bullshit.
We mustn`t believe what the mainstream media / governenment tells us to think. Whether it`s about WMDs or that 19 Arabs executed 911.
 
You've disgraced yourself on this thread, Jazzz.

I know how slippery and evasive you can be, but I couldn't see that much in the OP to be evasive about. Butchersapron clearly did, and pursued a particular line of enquiry. I still have no idea what the significance of that line of enquiry was, but it was clearly very relevant and pretty significant, judging by all the twisting and turning you have done, and the strenuous efforts you have made to avoid giving straight answers to his questions.

Brilliant!

"I don't really understand the problem at all, but judging by all the whooping and hollering, I'm going to join in"

Have you any idea how absurd your post is? It is one of the most I have ever seen.
 
"Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed"

No, and of course it is the job of the military to have some sort of a plan in place for all sorts of unlikely - or horrible - scenarios that might occur, so the existence of plans in themselves doesn't mean much. If you didn't think that plans like these existed you'd be guilty of naivety.

But it is interesting the extent to which the production of a casus belli dominates the Operation Northwoods stuff (in the context of the 9/11 debate). In a sense, if the US military hadn't got a 9/11 ready to roll, they wouldn't have been doing their job.
 
Cynthia called Barack Obama a war criminal.

Some of you who fell under the spell of this phoney , should read this article which has just come out written by a former Obama supporter.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ralph_nader_was_right_about_barack_obama_20100301/

Right so we are to listen to someone's personal viewpoint on a loon site called "Truth Dig" and take it as absolute fact?

Why is it all conspiranoids say things like "You should listen to this" and then link to some unsubstantiated bullshit that could've been written by anyone. Also, why the tagling "Independent thinking" when you exhibit absolutely nothing of the sort?

Edit: In fact, skim reading that reveals absolutely nothing at all. It says literally three things:

1. Obama is a supporter of big business
2. Voting achieves nothing
3. We must build a socialist movement

You seem astounded enough by these revelations to post them on a message board, as if no one anywhere else has thought of these things.
 
Guess what - I don't either.

Why were you so evasive about such a simple question?

You were asked in post 14 (and several times after that) whether CM shared your belief about whether there was a false flag/controlled demolition operation. But it took until post 142 for you to actually state clearly what your answer to this was.

And it's not as if your answer was a complex one, or one that is difficult to explain.

You could have just said in post 15:

"Cynthia McKinney has not explicitly stated in public that it was a false flag operation, but my understanding is that in private, her belief is that it was."

Why didn't you do that?

The reason that line of enquiry was pursued was mainly that you were being so evasive about it, and the natural response, when someone is being evasive about something, is to try and find out why.
 
No-one is attacking her integrity, apart from Jazz, who said, originally, that she said 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation, but is now only saying that he thinks she thinks that it was a false flag, but she won't say so out loud. That she's covering up the cover up, so to speak.

So you wind your neck in.

I'm sorry but my line has been entirely consistent. Your statement is 100% false. You are making it up as you go along.
 
Guess what - I don't either.
Well, for someone who had no idea what it was about, there was an awful lot of :hmm: :eek: :facepalm: :hmm: coming from you about it, not to mention a great deal of wriggling, twisting and turning that you'd need a 4-dimensional emoticon to do any justice to.
 
I'm sorry but my line has been entirely consistent. Your statement is 100% false. You are making it up as you go along.

You stated earlier that CM had said that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

You were then asked to provide proof of this, and responded by saying that 'I know she thinks this, because she wears a t-shirt, and she's committed to having 9/11 reinvestigated, and that everyone who wants this to happen knows that it was CD and a false flag.'

So what you're saying she's doing by not commenting publicly or off the records that 9/11 was a false flag, CD etc operation, but that you know this is what she thinks, she's essentially covering-up the cover up. So you are in fact impuning her integrity by saying that she's not prepared to say what she believes. Or what you believe she believes, but you don't really actually know, because she's never said it.
 
Why were you so evasive about such a simple question?

You were asked in post 14 (and several times after that) whether CM shared your belief about whether there was a false flag/controlled demolition operation. But it took until post 142 for you to actually state clearly what your answer to this was.

And it's not as if your answer was a complex one, or one that is difficult to explain.

You could have just said in post 15:

"Cynthia McKinney has not explicitly stated in public that it was a false flag operation, but my understanding is that in private, her belief is that it was."

Why didn't you do that?
What is this utter rubbish? My reply to this question came in post 24 because dear Teuchter, I am not the only person on the thread. It was

Jazzz said:
Of course she does, I can tell you that with certainty. However, as she is the political face of the truth movement she may have to limit her pronouncements to what is proved and questions.

which is exactly the reply you suggest. This is Kafkaesque.

Jazzz you do cynthia mckinney a serious disservice by associating her with these opinions.
Like by promoting the event? Bullcrap, I am fighting our corner.

Well, for someone who had no idea what it was about, there was an awful lot of :hmm: :eek: :facepalm: :hmm: coming from you about it, not to mention a great deal of wriggling, twisting and turning that you'd need a 4-dimensional emoticon to do any justice to.
I simply answer the questions put to me, and show my opinion of nonsense put my way. As I do now. :rolleyes:

You stated earlier that CM had said that 9/11 was a false flag operation.
This is now getting into lie territory. I was giving you the benefit of the honest mistake before. You are lying. Shut the fuck up, liar.
 
Back
Top Bottom