Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

did anyone see this ...about 7/7 bombings

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Summery for those of us who don't have an hour to spare, please?


  • Registered Users Posts: 909 ✭✭✭stuff.hunter


    simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭El Inho


    simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up :)

    that smiley face was disturbing


  • Registered Users Posts: 909 ✭✭✭stuff.hunter


    eldwaro wrote: »
    that smiley face was disturbing

    ..my bad


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭chin_grin


    simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up :)

    So basically a copy and paste 9/11 conspiracy theory?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 909 ✭✭✭stuff.hunter


    chin_grin wrote: »
    So basically a copy and paste 9/11 conspiracy theory?

    its look alot more than theory only


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    its look alot more than theory only

    A theory form the same man who thinks George Lucas wrote Star Wars while he was being directed by "the Force" and btw Star Wars is a true story according to him.

    Also he wants Ian Mckellen publicly executed for being gay.

    Still think its a god theory?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    A theory form the same man who thinks George Lucas wrote Star Wars while he was being directed by "the Force" and btw Star Wars is a true story according to him.

    Also he wants Ian Mckellen publicly executed for being gay.

    Still think its a god theory?

    None of the above has anything to do with the film.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    ... http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ ... holly sh1t just watched it, seems to be true...
    what do yis thinking

    You might be interested in this too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 909 ✭✭✭stuff.hunter


    You might be interested in this too.


    thanks mate,
    btw why Muad'Dib got arrested if this film is a complete un-truth


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    thanks mate,
    btw why Muad'Dib got arrested if this film is a complete un-truth

    He got arrested for perverting justice by sending this video to the judge and jury foreman in a related trial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    None of the above has anything to do with the film.

    It has everything to do with the film, the film is the work of a man who beleives in "the force", he claims that only he knows that star wars is real and george Lucas was a tool of "the force". He wants gay people put to death when he takes control of the UK.

    Why on earth would anyone take any of his crackpot ideas seriously?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    It has everything to do with the film, the film is the work of a man who beleives in "the force", he claims that only he knows that star wars is real and george Lucas was a tool of "the force". He wants gay people put to death when he takes control of the UK.

    Why on earth would anyone take any of his crackpot ideas seriously?

    Re-wording your ad-hominen attacks against the maker of the film don't make them any less irrelevant to the content of the film -- which you haven't made a single comment on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ...
    Yup alot of ppl think that!


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    Re-wording your ad-hominen attacks against the maker of the film don't make them any less irrelevant to the content of the film -- which you haven't made a single comment on.

    Attacks? all i did was state something that comes directly from his website - how is that attacking him? the website stated that gay people should be executed, that is his opinion - I stated that I feel that makes him a crackpot, hardly an attack.

    As for the content of the film, its quite simple, he has zero credibility and I watched it with that fact in mind, remember the old saying even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.

    Honest question for you, do you find him credible? and if so how do you get past his more strange (i.e. star wars is real, kill gay people) beliefs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    None of the above has anything to do with the film.
    This is true, but if a man who thinks he is the true King of England and Israel, and that Hilter was a 'counterfeit Jew', along with a third of his army, and a hundred other crazy beliefs came to you with another conspiracy theory - would you agree that his track record suggests he lacks credibility?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Attacks? all i did was state something that comes directly from his website - how is that attacking him? the website stated that gay people should be executed, that is his opinion - I stated that I feel that makes him a crackpot, hardly an attack.
    It is by definition an "attack", an ad-hominen attack. I'm not going to keep saying it so read this instead:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
    As for the content of the film, its quite simple, he has zero credibility and I watched it with that fact in mind, remember the old saying even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.
    This is an admission of prejudice, which makes any opinions you have on the film worthless.
    Honest question for you, do you find him credible? and if so how do you get past his more strange (i.e. star wars is real, kill gay people) beliefs?
    I really don't know anything about the man.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    This is true, but if a man who thinks he is the true King of England and Israel, and that Hilter was a 'counterfeit Jew', along with a third of his army, and a hundred other crazy beliefs came to you with another conspiracy theory - would you agree that his track record suggests he lacks credibility?
    Based on that, no. However, if Darwin thought the earth was flat it wouldn't make me reconsider his theory of evolution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Based on that, no. However, if Darwin thought the earth was flat it wouldn't make me reconsider his theory of evolution.
    But if Darwin had supported his theory only with his supposed ability to identify patterns and personal version of logic, then the fact that he believed in clearly nonsensical ideas would call it into question.

    And since this is all Maud'Dib has and he believes stuff that is very clearly the product of delusion, the stuff you want to argee with is suspect.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    But if Darwin had supported his theory only with his supposed ability to identify patterns and personal version of logic, then the fact that he believed in clearly nonsensical ideas would call it into question.
    Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. It doesn't matter either way. Perhaps you might oblige by answering a question directly?

    If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?
    King Mob wrote: »
    And since this is all Maud'Dib has and he believes stuff that is very clearly the product of delusion, the stuff you want to argee with is suspect.
    Strawman, I don't "want to agree" with anything. I am prepared to judge his claims on their own merits and not on the basis of other claims he has made.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?
    If he believed the world to be flat, and himself to be Jesus, and the world to be blue cheese, and Star Wars to be the bible, and mice to be gods, and 100 other odd beliefs - then yes, it would diminish his theory. There is still a tiny chance that - by sheer randomness - his theory would be correct, but a posteriori, you could be pretty confident it would be total gibberish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    The July 7th Truth Campaign are pretty decisive in their rebuttal of the video.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. It doesn't matter either way. Perhaps you might oblige by answering a question directly?

    If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?
    I did answer the question directly.
    No it wouldn't have, as evolution is supported by good evidence.
    However if Darwin had solely relied on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns" and so forth, then the theory would be suspect.
    It would doubly be so if the same authority and abilities lead him to a clearly silly and delusional idea such as the world is flat or that George Lucas is an instrument of the force.
    Strawman, I don't "want to agree" with anything. I am prepared to judge his claims on their own merits and not on the basis of other claims he has made.
    Except we both know that if anyone posted an official source, you wouldn't be as willing to judge the claims on their own merits.

    The only reason you are giving this guy any sort of chance is because you happen to like what he says on that topic.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    If he believed the world to be flat, and himself to be Jesus, and the world to be blue cheese, and Star Wars to be the bible, and mice to be gods, and 100 other odd beliefs - then yes, it would diminish his theory. There is still a tiny chance that - by sheer randomness - his theory would be correct, but a posteriori, you could be pretty confident it would be total gibberish.
    Monty, holding any of these beliefs would not refute Darwin's theory of evolution.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I did answer the question directly.
    No it wouldn't have, as evolution is supported by good evidence.
    However if Darwin had solely relied on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns" and so forth, then the theory would be suspect.
    It would doubly be so if the same authority and abilities lead him to a clearly silly and delusional idea such as the world is flat or that George Lucas is an instrument of the force.
    And in the video in question does the filmaker rely "solely ...on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns"?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Except we both know that if anyone posted an official source, you wouldn't be as willing to judge the claims on their own merits.

    The only reason you are giving this guy any sort of chance is because you happen to like what he says on that topic.
    And now your making ad-hom attacks against me. You don't have to be Muad Dib to see "patterns" here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    It is by definition an "attack", an ad-hominen attack. I'm not going to keep saying it so read this instead:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    based on your own posts you have proved its not an ad-hominen attack.

    From the link you posted;

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

    Two things,

    First you admit that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to say what is a fallacy.

    Secondly several relevant facts about the man have been posted here, perhaps research him a bit before defending him, just a suggestion.


    This is an admission of prejudice, which makes any opinions you have on the film worthless.


    You honestly believe that if you think a source is unreliable your opinion on the subject is worthless?, so anyone who thinks Fox News is unreliable best not comment on anything as any opinion they have would be worthless?

    Tell me are there any organizations or people you think are unreliable? Have you ever posted anything on here showing prejudice? if so according to you any opinions you have on the subject are worthless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Monty, holding any of these beliefs would not refute Darwin's theory of evolution.

    It would not refute the theory, as I agreed. But it would probably mean that the theory that Darwin actually came up with was that animals were descended from alien biscuits. What we know as 'Darwin's theory' would have been discovered by someone sane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And in the video in question does the filmaker rely "solely ...on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns"?
    From what I have read, it's the same stuff he used to conclude that Star Wars is real, thus making it suspect.
    And now your making ad-hom attacks against me. You don't have to be Muad Dib to see "patterns" here.
    It's not ad-hom attack, it's simply a fact.
    You discount any offical sources because they are offical, that's it.
    It's no different to what you are saying we shouldn't be doing.

    Except that they guy you are defending is presenting very very silly claims.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    based on your own posts you have proved its not an ad-hominen attack.

    From the link you posted;

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument
    His views on Ian Mckellan and star wars are completely irrelevant to any facts/inferences presented/made in the film.
    Two things,

    First you admit that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to say what is a fallacy.
    My knowledge or lack of knowledge about Muad Dib or anyone/anything else is irrelevant to what is a fallacy. Your ad-hom's against the filmaker were fallacies. There is no two ways about it.
    bSecondly several relevant facts about the man have been posted here, perhaps research him a bit before defending him, just a suggestion.
    No. They are irrelevant to the film and the facts presented therein.
    You honestly believe that if you think a source is unreliable your opinion on the subject is worthless?, so anyone who thinks Fox News is unreliable best not comment on anything as any opinion they have would be worthless?
    No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.
    Tell me are there any organizations or people you think are unreliable? Have you ever posted anything on here showing prejudice? if so according to you any opinions you have on the subject are worthless.
    Yes, I am human.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.
    Can we look forward to you taking every Fox News bullsh!t report seriously from here on in, BB? After all, their ravings are still a lot more sensible than those of John Hill! :)


Advertisement