It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy.
I wouldn't say angry, but touché. That's a good point. For the record, I'm not saying exclusively AQ did 9/11; there were other actors as well. But they were involved.
Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Israeli funds Hamas. You think it's ridiculous that "Jews" (not all, obviously, but some interest group, or Israeli cutout, or what have you) would fund Sharpton?
And, again, you missed the point. I'm not even taking sides, just pointing out that your initial rebuttal made no logical sense. And I never said "Mr. Retard" was correct, or his logic was well thought out, or anything. Just that 'Jews wouldn't fund someone who stirred up anti-Jew riots' is far from a compelling argument. Because they absolutely fucking would. And, no, not because 'muh Jews,' but because that's how organizations operate. Heck, Israel loves antisemitism.
You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.
I wouldn't say angry, but touché. That's a good point. For the record, I'm not saying exclusively AQ did 9/11; there were other actors as well. But they were involved.
Not you. I didn't know your position, but I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Not that commonplace. (Leaving aside that if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies. If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right? Now, in more exceptional circumstances, he might be serving my interetss... for insurance money, for example. But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted. The reasonable default conclusion, absent further evidence, is that he is not serving my interests. And the reasonable default conclusion for a guy inciting anti-Jewish riots is that he's not a "Jewish agent". Could it be 900D-chess where they use this guy to play the victim? Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Still, I'd need to see evidence, and the weight of the evidence absent such evidence is that he is not. Same for the example I gave you earlier to make you see it from another perspective. If a woman claimed a guy is a rapist, and there was evidence of them interacting cordially after the alleged rape, that suggests that he did not do it. Are there exceptional circumstances here this is not the case? Sure. These would require evidence, and in the absence of that evidence, I would conclude that the guy did not do it.
This all seem so obvious to me that I'm a bit shocked that you're so resistant to it. Perhaps you think that I'm saying that this is definitive, absolute 100% proof (which I don't even have for your consciousness or existence), rather than the fact that this is evidence that very strongly suggests something?
Israeli funds Hamas. You think it's ridiculous that "Jews" (not all, obviously, but some interest group, or Israeli cutout, or what have you) would fund Sharpton?
I think it's ridiculous to call him a Jewish agent. I'm sure he's had support from Jews completely unrelated to Jewishness.
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
Just that 'Jews wouldn't fund someone who stirred up anti-Jew riots' is far from a compelling argument. Because they absolutely fucking would. And, no, not because 'muh Jews,' but because that's how organizations operate.
Obviously not that, I know you well enough.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.
Let's see who has lost perspective, or maybe neither. Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots, and someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference to your judgment of the truth of the assertion that this guy is a Jewish agent.
I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
...if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right?
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted.
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
I kind of would. Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots...answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference...
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
They'll just call you a retarded, brainwashed, Jew puppet. I think. I do have that experience, not even arguing stridently for it, just mentioning it in passing.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
If you're an agent, then by definition, no. An agent is not an enemy. You can fund actual enemies, but if they remain enmies, they're not agents.
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
If nearly all funding goes to allies, then the fact that "X is funded by Y" inherently makes it likely that Y is an ally of X.
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
Ah, crap, they're onto me. Yes, in that case, it would be very reasonable to make that assumption. If the supposed Jews funding Sharpton have a long history of paying people to incite anti-Jewish riots, then I'd agree with that very informed observer, OP.
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
It changes everything.
Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
It's that and the fact that Hamas's mere existence creates divisions that makes a deal impossible. Any deal acceptable to the Palestinian Authority will be unacceptable to Hamas, they can always outflank the PA.
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
Much less likely. Of all such groups, very few are funded by America. Of course, we know of one that it's the case, so it's not entirely impossible. Even them I wouldn't call agents of America. A strategic alliance is not the same as being an agent - the latter of which is when you are advancing someone else's interests at the expense of your own alleged goals. There have been many cases where enemies team up because they share goals, in this case the defeat of Assad and weakening far more consequential actors (Russia, China, Iran) than mere Islamic terrorists.
I wouldn't say angry, but touché. That's a good point. For the record, I'm not saying exclusively AQ did 9/11; there were other actors as well. But they were involved.
I didn't say strange. It's not strange. That's my point. Funding enemies is commonplace.
Israeli funds Hamas. You think it's ridiculous that "Jews" (not all, obviously, but some interest group, or Israeli cutout, or what have you) would fund Sharpton?
And, again, you missed the point. I'm not even taking sides, just pointing out that your initial rebuttal made no logical sense. And I never said "Mr. Retard" was correct, or his logic was well thought out, or anything. Just that 'Jews wouldn't fund someone who stirred up anti-Jew riots' is far from a compelling argument. Because they absolutely fucking would. And, no, not because 'muh Jews,' but because that's how organizations operate. Heck, Israel loves antisemitism.
No, you've lost perspective, or just monumentally and unintentionally misconstrued me. Your logic doesn't work; that was my only point.
Not you. I didn't know your position, but I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
Not that commonplace. (Leaving aside that if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies. If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right? Now, in more exceptional circumstances, he might be serving my interetss... for insurance money, for example. But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted. The reasonable default conclusion, absent further evidence, is that he is not serving my interests. And the reasonable default conclusion for a guy inciting anti-Jewish riots is that he's not a "Jewish agent". Could it be 900D-chess where they use this guy to play the victim? Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Still, I'd need to see evidence, and the weight of the evidence absent such evidence is that he is not. Same for the example I gave you earlier to make you see it from another perspective. If a woman claimed a guy is a rapist, and there was evidence of them interacting cordially after the alleged rape, that suggests that he did not do it. Are there exceptional circumstances here this is not the case? Sure. These would require evidence, and in the absence of that evidence, I would conclude that the guy did not do it.
This all seem so obvious to me that I'm a bit shocked that you're so resistant to it. Perhaps you think that I'm saying that this is definitive, absolute 100% proof (which I don't even have for your consciousness or existence), rather than the fact that this is evidence that very strongly suggests something?
I think it's ridiculous to call him a Jewish agent. I'm sure he's had support from Jews completely unrelated to Jewishness.
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
Obviously not that, I know you well enough.
Let's see who has lost perspective, or maybe neither. Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots, and someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference to your judgment of the truth of the assertion that this guy is a Jewish agent.
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
I kind of would. Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
They'll just call you a retarded, brainwashed, Jew puppet. I think. I do have that experience, not even arguing stridently for it, just mentioning it in passing.
If you're an agent, then by definition, no. An agent is not an enemy. You can fund actual enemies, but if they remain enmies, they're not agents.
If nearly all funding goes to allies, then the fact that "X is funded by Y" inherently makes it likely that Y is an ally of X.
Ah, crap, they're onto me. Yes, in that case, it would be very reasonable to make that assumption. If the supposed Jews funding Sharpton have a long history of paying people to incite anti-Jewish riots, then I'd agree with that very informed observer, OP.
It changes everything.
It's that and the fact that Hamas's mere existence creates divisions that makes a deal impossible. Any deal acceptable to the Palestinian Authority will be unacceptable to Hamas, they can always outflank the PA.
Much less likely. Of all such groups, very few are funded by America. Of course, we know of one that it's the case, so it's not entirely impossible. Even them I wouldn't call agents of America. A strategic alliance is not the same as being an agent - the latter of which is when you are advancing someone else's interests at the expense of your own alleged goals. There have been many cases where enemies team up because they share goals, in this case the defeat of Assad and weakening far more consequential actors (Russia, China, Iran) than mere Islamic terrorists.
You're just quibbling over terms.
Agent, ally, asset, enemy, whatever.
"Enemies" or whatever can still be utilized as useful tools. That's pretty much my main point.