Warszawa - "troof seeker"

Retarded 9/11 troofer, warszawa, has hissy fit on PoV blog:

• William Blum's blatant and elementary error.
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 20:54:11, in reply to "William Blum on 9-11"
  
  "I do wish you guys in the 9/11 Truth Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an inside job,..."
  
  Blum is someone whose writings I've often admired, but his argument here is simply ridiculous.
  
  To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything. No-one is obliged to be Philip Marlowe or Perry Mason. It seems that Americans have still to learn the shocking truth: that these heroic ace sleuths are in fact mere fictional characters, like Santa Claus, Forrest Gump and the honest-to-goodness self-made millionaire. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Burden of Proof lies with the Bush gang alone, who rule the country, who alone have access to all the evidence, and who alone claim to have solved the crime, but who have never even seriously investigated it. Their very own handpicked toadies - Cleland, Kean and Hamilton - have themselves now admitted that America was "scammed", that the 9/11 Commission was "obstructed" by the CIA and the White House, and that even that feeble, compromised, underfunded, hamstrung Commission was - in addition - deliberately "set up to fail".
  
  So the Official Account is a worthless fraud. Until this issue reaches a court of law, that is all that anyone can prove, and that is all that anyone can be expected to prove. It has now been proven many times over. Its very authors have now admitted as much.
  
  "To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. "
  
  "A scenario"! - What the hell is it with Americans - even with "progressives" of Blum's calibre? Have their brains all been scrambled by decades of 24-hour cable TV?
  
  The task is not to "win over" the fastidious channel-surfer William Blum; the task is not to come up with a "plausible" "scenario", or a totally cool plot-twist, or even a cracking punchline; the task is to investigate a crime of mass murder.
  
  Ask any policeman or lawyer: There are well-established ways of doing such a thing. There are methods that have been tried and tested over the course of centuries. Those methods are effective. So the task is manageable, if you have police officers to enforce it. But how could that task be managed by anyone in what Blum calls "the 9/11 Truth Movement"? How could they possibly "prove it was an inside job"?
  
  William Blum is not just missing the point and reversing the Burden of Proof; he is demanding the impossible.
  
  Because nobody in what Blum calls "the 9/11 Truth Movement" can:
  
  - exercise powers of subpoena;
  
  - force the CIA to release the evidence, including the evidence that its secret Guantanamo prisoners actually did say what the CIA claims they said;
  
  - compel the airlines to release CCTV evidence that the alleged hijackers were actually even on the planes;
  
  - interrogate Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Myers;
  
  - force them or any other witness or Person of Interest to testify under oath.
  
  Etcetera. Just for starters.
  
  All this is obvious, obvious, obvious. William Blum should switch his telly off and grow up.




• "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud"
  
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 21:29:39, in reply to "William Blum's blatant and elementary error."
  
  
  Yawn
  
  "To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything."
  
  Great position - thus enabling you to bore and harass netizens with your worthless mantras: the Bush Gang did it, the Official Story is clearly false, the hijackers are still alive, blah blah blah - without having to provide a shred of evidence.




• Look, with all DUE politeness...
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 22:12:04, in reply to ""So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  PISS OFF, YOU ATTENTION-SEEKING OAF.
  
  That's all the response your predictably oafish "response" deserves. You are a chronic waste of time - or at least you want to be.
  
  MODS: Please regard this is an official complaint about The Oaf. You know I have recently done *precisely* what you requested in your board rules; you know how you responded to my response; so it's your move now.
  
  Look at the quality of this cretin's posts. This is his idea of "political discussion".
  
  Very, very clearly, the only possible response to such an oafish, pea-brained homophobic Tory pillock is abuse - because he is not remotely interested in an honest argument, nor is he remotely capable of it. And it is NOT a good policy to let such reactionary powerworshipping cretins get away with murder, WITHOUT a response. Simply ignoring the Omnipresent Oaf who calls himself Thug is NOT a serious option. To pretend it is, is to ignore the nature of politics entirely.
  
  It's your board, Mods, so it's your move. Choose the kind of "online forum for political discussion" you want to have. If it has now become an open playground for timewasting, ad-posting, complacently "contrarian" Tory Oafs, then please let me know. Because I believe the online edition of the Daily Mail already provides such a playground, and I don't understand the need to duplicate it.
  
  Thank you.




• Political discussion?
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 22:39:21, in reply to "Look, with all DUE politeness..."
  
  Where is the "political discussion" in your posts?
  
  Your position:
  
  "To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything."
  
  makes political discussion impossible.
  
  Politically, it's also about the most naive statement that I've read in long time - the sort of statement that could only be made by somebody who has little knowledge of the history of struggles for freedom.
  
  Accusing others of "power worship" is laughable. You defer to the law to answer your 9/11 questions and you spend every other post calling on the board administrators to take action against people who say stuff that you don't like.
  
  And "your" capacity for abuse seemingly has no limits - I'm now a "Tory" and a "homophobe" as well as all the other names that you've levelled at me in the last 18 months.




• "I'm now a "Tory" and a "homophobe""
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 23:09:33, in reply to "Political discussion?"
  
  Yes, precisely. For once, you've understood something. (Statistically, it had to happen eventually.)
  
  You are very obviously a Tory and a homophobe. If you doubt this, it merely demonstrates that you cannot even read your own posts. You are the very model of a Top Gear-watching, animal-rights-despising, consumer-toy-addicted, BBC-believing, insecurely-bragging, "fruit"-fearing, complacent, suburbanite Home Counties pub bore.
  
  "Where is the "political discussion" in your posts?"
  
  It's in my posts. You are admittedly sentient, but equally clearly illiterate. Or more likely, you simply pretend to be illiterate, because it suits you to do so and it allows you to waste people's time even more effectively.
  
  But not with me, matey. So fvck you, and fvck off.




• Eelpie, you are wasting your time with The Oaf,
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 22:29:14, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  The more politely and rationally you argue, the more cretinous and dishonest his response will be. He is a Tory Oaf and a troll. (I predict that his reponse to your post - if any - will be in his well-practiced Gollum Mode, because he knows very well when he has been exceptionally oafish and needs to slink away from the headmaster.)




• Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud"
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 22:56:59, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  On the contrary, the official account is a potent legend, and the essence of a legend is that it is unverifiable.
  
  It is literally impossible to verify the U.S. government's assertions about the events of Sept 11th 2001.
  
  
  I differentiate between the "official account" and the officially collected evidence. The conspiracy theorists seem to consider them one and the same.
  
  Verification is possible (not instant, but possible) because of the professionalism and rationalism of those who gathered and assessed the evidence.
  
  Claiming that this process and the conclusions drawn by experts is worthless and unscientific - especially if you aren't prepared to provide your own rational explanation - is what makes the conspiracy theorist look like a nut nut.
  
  So let's get back to discussing the ridiculous claims - like routine interception of civilian aircraft pre-9/11 - so that we can dispense with "stand down" theories and get on to more interesting stuff.




• The Oaf in Full Oafishness
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 23:20:45, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  "Verification is possible (not instant, but possible) because of the professionalism and rationalism of those who gathered and assessed the evidence. "
  
  Leaving aside all the rest of the rubbish in this post (how did The Tory Oaf manage to pack so much crap into such a tiny space?): "Rationalism" [sic]? It's tempting to say 'Shurely shome mishtake?' But of course this is what we get when Jeremy Clarkson tries to emulate Wittgenstein.
  
  What a waste of time you are, Oaf. You're funniest when you're trying hard to look serious.