Cimarron29414

Not a typo. It's about who COULD have been in the buildings, not who were. The WTC towers easily held 20K on a normal day - then you think of the Pentagon and the Capital (which would have been hit, had it not been for those on the plane.)

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

I'm trying to picture a conspiracy theorist believing all the crazy-ass shit they'd have to believe to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, but NOT believing that the conspirators could tell time.

Cimarron29414

The number of uncontrollable factors that lead to that death toll could not have been anticipated or managed to ensure a low death toll - meaning, if one only wanted to make an impression but not actually kill a lot of people...why not just do the attack in the middle of the night, or at 6:00 am?

Hence, one must assume they went on general population of the buildings and hoped to kill as many as possible.

Which goes to Beck's point: if you truly question whether your government would attempt to exterminate 30K of their own people - that is the ONLY thing you should be focusing on. Anyone who is "unsure" whether the government played a role, as Medina stated, shouldn't worry about property taxes and such - they should worry about the government murdering its people.

Beck, of course, does not believe in any government involvement.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

The_Dunedan

Thanks for the correction on ULTRA vs MK-ULTRA, I had the two confused.

Now, as for FDR and Pearl Harbor...sorry, not BS. The contention that FDR, probably the Sec. of War, and almost certainly the Sec. State were at least aware of an impending attack on US Pacific assets is widely accepted as a valid (if unproven) hypothesis within professional historical circles. These was considerable disagreement on the location of the attack: Pearl Harbor was considered too far for the IJN to sail without being detected, but attacks on US interests/bases in the Phillipines, or perhaps on Wake Island, were considered at least equally likely. It's telling to note that neither the Phillipine garrisons -nor- Wake Island had their defenses strengthened or upgraded*, despite the fact that War Dept. "White Papers" were circulating as early as 1938 and as late as Dec. of 1940 suggesting that such an attack was in the works. Of course, one must remember that this is the same War Dept. which so vigorously overlooked both Lt. Col. Mitchell's groundbreaking experiments with anti-ship airpower and the Battle Of Port Arthur during the Russo-Japanese War, so a certain measure of institutional idiocy is also doubtless to blame.

Additionally, such does little to account for the fact that repeated radar warnings were ignored or "spiked" by command on the ground at Pearl**, that the Japanese attempt (very old-school of them) to give 3hrs warning before the attack was likewise ignored, or that warnings of midget submarines entering Pearl Harbor were not only ignored but discounted for years, even after the USS Ward accurately reported engaging and sinking one such vessel.

As regard the possession of Enigma codes; yes, most of the Japanese codes which were currently readable were Diplomatic. However, they were encoded and decoded using the same 3-rotor commercial Enigma machines used by the IJN and by much of the German military prior to 1940. This is the kind of intel you want to play -very- close to the vest. When the Abwehr added a fourth rotor in mid 1944, the intelligence loss it caused was so great that it allowed the planning and build-up for the Ardennes Offensive (Battle Of The Bulge) to take place in almost total secrecy. FDR and Churchill both knew, as to a lesser degree did De Gaulle and Stalin, that the preservation of this kind of intelligence was of absolutely paramount importance, and both men made horrible Solomonic decisions (as you acknowledge with Coventry) to protect it.

As for FDR's second motivation for ensuring US entry into the war, it was very simple. He (and everyone else) knew that once the UK was conquered and occupied, the Atlantic would be wide open and the eastern US left vulnerable to attacks by the Kreigsmarine. At this point the Atom Bomb was only a theory, but the possibility of atomic attack may very well have entered into the discussion. Most importantly, FDR and Churchill both knew that, once the UK fell and British colonial interests in Africa and the Far East fell in German/Japanese hands, Germany would have both the materiel and the manpower to challenge the industrial capacities of the US and USSR. This would have been -especially- true if Albert Speer or someone similarly capable was at the helm. With such capacity, the US would not only be vulnerable to significant assault itself, but the USSR (already on shaky ground thanks to the Yezhovschina Purges, and with Stalin playing the weather-vane to Hitler's wind) would probably have been taken out of the fight by either military or economic/diplomatic means. In order to prevent the conquest of the UK and the loss of the Soviet Union, it was important for the US to enter the war quickly. It was equally important that such entry not be initiated against Germany. An American analogue to the NAZI party, complete with swastikas and brown shirts, was already enjoying rapid growth, and Fascist-esque penetration of the US popular media was already well advanced. FDR risked the real possibility of both losing England and losing his job if America was seen to be initiating conflict with the Nazis, especially since many Americans at the time regarded the Nazis as a disagreeable but needed bulwark against Bolshevism. It was therefore important that the declarations of war follow as they did: Japan attacks, US declares war on Japan, Germany declares war on US.

As for Mr. Dewey retracting his statements, I have no doubt that he did. I also have no doubt that he had plenty of "help" from J. Edgar Hoover and his crowd of leg-breakers and blackmail specialists. We today have considerably more evidence that Dewey did, and much of it IMO points to at very least the passive compliance of the Rooseveldt administration for the above-outlined specific policy motives.


*The poor Marines on Wake were still using '03A3 Springfield rifles and Brewster Buffalo fighters at the time of the Battle Of Wake Island!
**And no, there is no way that hundreds of fighters approaching from the WEST were mistaken for five B-17 heavy bombers which were supposed to approach from the EAST.

ratbastid

I disagree with your conclusion-drawing, there.

I know this may be heresy for some of you, but I think the attack was VERY carefully timed for two objectives: maximum media impact, and as little human casualty as possible. Doing it when most of the country is asleep would lose the primary objective of any mass terrorist attack, and that is a CRAPLOAD of attention RIGHT NOW. Doing it at around 9:00am ensures the media folks are awake and at work, and there ARE victims in the buildings, but the buildings are, at that time, about 1/10th full, as you point out.

I've always assumed that the hijackers weren't actually interested in killing more people than they needed to, and my evidence for that has been the relatively early-in-the-day timing of the attack. If I were timing such an attack and wanted to keep my body count as low as I could, I'd pick some time between 8:00 and 9:00am (the first building was hit at about 8:45, the second at like 9:03). Otherwise, why not sleep in a little and do it in the early afternoon when the buildings are full?

Derwood

Right. If they were going for body count, they would have crashed the plane into a college football stadium or something

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Cimarron29414

I'm having a difficult time following you guys. Are either of you saying that you believe the government was involved?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

I'm certainly not. I'll let Derwood speak for himself.

All I'm saying is, I think the timing of the thing lends a certain view to the attackers that has been overlooked, either deliberately or not, and that is that they picked a relatively low-victim-count time of day for their attack. I think it's clear they were out to do the thing with maximum visual shock-and-awe as a first objective, and as FEW human casualties as they could as a second objective.

Pearl Trade

Why would they care how many people they killed? They obviously place no value on life, so I don't see why they wouldn't kill as many infidel as possible. If it's possible that they could have killed more, then maybe it's just a coincidence that they didn't.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Cimarron29414

I tend to agree with Pearl Trade. These people don't value life. I believe they truly wish there were more people in the building and that they killed many, many more of us. I don't think anyone who possessing enough hatred for a people to concoct, plan and execute such an act would give a second's consideration on mitigating death toll. I don't think we can begin to understand the hatred needed to justify such an act. We simply grew up in a place which values life and we want to project that value on others.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

The_Dunedan

I think it's a pretty long stretch to argue that the 9/11 hijackers deliberately avoided civilian casualties. If they wanted to minimise loss of life, they would have called in warnings to Gov't agencies and media outlets, several of them, as the IRA did before several of its' more impressive fireworks shows. If they had wanted to minimise loss of life, they could simply have crashed the planes into open fields, or taken them out over the ocean. Instead, they selected as their primary targets two very large buildings with a HUGE head-count capacity. I doubt very seriously that they considered how many people would be there at which time: they just looked for the biggest box that can hold the most stuff and shot for that. And if they -had- been in such a mood....duh. NYC never sleeps, airports included. They could have done their little dance in the middle of the night, when the buildings would be as close to empty as anything in NYC ever is. They still would have had their "shock and awe;" two 100-story skyscrapers on fire in the middle of the night would have been a HUGE piece of S&A. But they didn't.

ratbastid

Perl Trade and Cimmaron's responses are textbook righty rhetoric, with absolutely zero thinking done from the perspective of the attackers. "They hate people and don't value life" is too shallow a level of thinking (if you can even call it that) to engage with, so I'm not going to bother.

As usual though, Dunedan makes interesting points. I can see "minimize casualties" isn't really quite what I meant to say. I guess I'm saying, it's not that they wanted ZERO casualties. I think they saw mass death as critical to making their point. But there's a difference between 3k and 30k victims.

The question you're answering is "why 9am instead of 2 in the morning?", but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking, "why 9am instead of 2 in the afternoon?" Given the attack could have been a WHOLE lot worse in terms of lost life, and assuming the hijackers and/or their planners are no dummies, why DIDN'T they pick the time that would give them the most devastating body-count? "We were lucky" isn't a satisfying answer to this question, for me.

You could get a team onto a quartet of planes out of Logan and JFK literally any hour of the day or night, if you don't care where they're going or what airline they are. Getting on planes at that hour meant, even back then, getting up at the ass-crack of dawn to check in and go through what was then known as security. It's not like it was a convenient hour for them. So why'd they pick it? They could have picked any time. Why 9am?

I know that attributing to the 9/11 hijackers and planners any sort of thought for their victims completely short-circuits the synapses of many Americans. But I have to think they picked that time because they felt there would be enough casualties at that hour, and didn't feel the need to cause any more than enough.

Plan9

Say what? The symbolic targets were the goal, the body count was just an added bonus. Their schedule was fucked up anyway, 9/11 wasn't the original go date, they didn't have a whole lotta control over the weapons (time frames / locations of the aircraft), some of their operatives had been busted, etc. Granted, this is all coming from various State Department lectures and the 9/11 Commission report and I'm a complete dumbass. I figure the attacks of 9/11 are a product of both blind luck and incredible failures on the United States' part to share info amongst hide-the-ball rival LE / intel agencies. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and we got rocked in the chin pretty good. It's easy to see the failures afterward and play up both sides of the conflict.

And consider my synapses fried... I just spent the last couple years studying terrorism at cawl-edge and the goal of the greater global jihadist movement has always been to kill as many of whitey as possible in his own home. Suicide bombers are promoted. Nuclear weapons are on the table. There is no "enough." You don't think that the GJM would green light operations that killed as many adult (Muslim PR issues with killing kids) whities as possible?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that those who slammed planes into the WTC and Pentagon were looking to reduce their bodycount? Because of the time the planes impacted? Because that side of the Pentagon was largely uninhabited due to renovation? Please explain, I'm totally lost here.

You can't call me a "textbook righty."

...

Also: Glenn Beck's a blubbering talking-head pussy like every other muppet on FOX/MSNBC/CNN.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

first, no....I don't believe the US Government had anything to do with the attack

second, I don't believe the goal of the terrorists was to minimize the death toll OR to kill as many people as possible. It's goal was to destroy three symbolic buildings; the WTC (commerce), the Pentagon (military) and the White House (political). The third was "sabotaged" by the passengers on board.

in other words, the death toll (large or small) wasn't the first consideration in the orchestration of the attacks

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

ratbastid

Pretty much, yeah. I mean, not reduce their body count, but rather that their body count was nowhere near as important to them as the symbolic and shock value of their targets.

Now: you tell me that the time of day of the attacks had some other explanation, I'm all ears. I'm just trying to think from where THEY might have been thinking from choosing that time. If you say they didn't have all that much choice in the matter, well I'm listening.

I also think that "terrorism" (or guerilla war, as it used to be called) has changed a lot since 9/11 and our hamfisted reaction to it, and it might well be about body count these days.

To be clear--I've never really articulated this, even for myself, before this thread. So I'm thinking this through myself. I don't have a real strong attachment to the conclusion I'm coming to at all, I just think we'd do well to think like those who attack us.

No indeedy. It wasn't the disagreement that prompted me to namecalling. I'm actually interested in other opinions about this. It was the lack of thinking.

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

Yes, now add to that the fact that they chose a daytime hour when relatively few people would be in the building. Doesn't that add up to, they went for the shock and symbol impact, and did so in a way that would kill the LEAST people?

As I said above, "We got off light, we were lucky, it was a coincidence"... these just don't satisfy me as answers to this question.

I mean, they had to pick a time, didn't they? Why did they pick that one? The conclusion I can come to is, they didn't want (from their point of view) unnecessarily large loss of life.

Plan9

Let's do this US Army NCO style:

Task:
Take out symbolic targets in the US.

Conditions:
Global Jihadist agenda, devoted martyrs, splintered US LE / intel agencies / lax airline security, gigundo airplanes, targets, 24/7 global news media.

Standard:
Buildings destroyed, media circus, crazy redneck Americans rash call for blood from dem foreigners.

Purpose:
Further Global Jihadist movement by striking fear into Great Whitey.

Direction:
(itty bitty logistical details, time and date don't really matter as long as targets are destroyed, high body count is bonus)

Motivation:
99 virgins.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Please, for the sake of the thread, keep this somehow tied into Glenn Beck, whether or not he's a libertarian, whether he set-up and smeared Debra Medina, and whether Medina was her own undoing. The 9/11 Truth movement might have something to do with it, but the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth movement should not be the focus here. Save that for another thread.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ratbastid

I get your assertion that they think more bodies is better, I really do. I'm just not sure how you explain, then, they chose a low-population time in the buildings they attacked. Are they just stupid?

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

(That's not at all what we're talking about anymore, but your point is still entirely valid.)

Glenn Beck Glenn Beck Baba Booey Baba Booey!

Plan9

Well, this link explains all we need to know about our homeboy Glenn Beck.

...

And a 0900 attack maximizes the amount of media coverage the average couch potato will watch that day before turning in at night.

...

The title of this thread is hilarious because it only applies to those who would actually believe anything that came out of his tooth-filled faceanus.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Pearl Trade

Wrong, these extremist's fucking HATE Americans. They HATE me, and you, and every single Western country. Why else would they attack us? They have even said before they want to kill all of us. In the Mid-East, whenever they see someone collaborating with American forces, they kill them. Proof that they don't care about human life is the killing of civilians and other inncoent people. The terrorists follow a strict view of the Koran, which in their mind gives them permission to kill the "infidel." To them, an infidel is anyone who doesn't believe in Allah, pretty much all western societies. Before the attacks, Bin Laden was quoted as saying "it is the duty of every Muslim to kill Americans anywhere." He also said, "You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator." By no means am I saying all Muslims believe this, I'm only talking about extreme, terroristic "Muslims."

Like it's been said before, more bodies the better, but its just a bonus to the main goal. The main goal was to send a knife through our hearts. Some even believe that the main goal was to increase American presence in the Mid-East, leading to a general Islamic hatred of us.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Derwood

You really believe the extremists believe all of that? I'm of the opinion that the Taliban/Al Qaeda/whomever use the hardcore religious angle to keep the followers in line, but all they really want is power

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Plan9

Turns out the bullet doesn't ask if the gun really meant it. I could use a colorful corporate analogy, but that'd be pretty lame.

What does it matter who really believes what if it results in jumbo jets crashing into skyscrapers in the name of defeating the Infidel?

What do you think motivated the 9/11 hijackers, Derwood? Something tells me it wasn't the dental benefits. Who gives a shit about what their bosses really believe if they can get grown men to crash planes into buildings. Of course it's all bullshit. Don't be silly. I don't think Al Qaeda ("Fragmented Core") believes their own drivel, no, but I don't believe that the US Army is an Army of One either. Slogans shouldn't be taken seriously, but crazed individuals who take them seriously enough to kill should. The terrorist mastermind is only dangerous because he makes his henchmen dangerous.

It's all about putting on a good show to achieve power/control. Kinda like Glenn Beck. I'd imagine he's inspired some of his followers to do bad things. Maybe FOX News has Al Qaeda on the payroll to provide the sensational conflict content they need for old Beckyboo to stay on the air.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

of course they should be taken seriously. my point was that the whole "turrists hate our freedom" line of thinking is bullshit. 9/11 wasn't about murder.

okay, I'm done....sorry for the continued threadjack

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Plan9

Well, to suggest that 9/11 wasn't about murder is to suggest that WW2 wasn't about murder.

It was just a little side effect, really.

...

Sometimes I think I might I wanna punch Glenn Beck in his fatty jowls with Keith Olberman's head.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ratbastid

You're still not thinking, Pearl Trade, but it's great how you're trying to. Here's a hint. Actual thinking results in new thoughts. I had a new thought a page or so up on this thread, and we batted it around a while. I'm not convinced about it, but one of the effects of thinking is that you can hold a thought lightly in mind and not get hung up on the truth or untruth of it.

You asked a great question. Why WOULD they attack us? If you set down all the answers you already know ("already knowing" is absolutely antithetical to what I'm calling "thinking") and start just sort of wondering about that question, why before long buddy, you'll be THINKING!

Actual thinking is very rare among humans and other great apes. Bertrand Russel: "Most people would rather die than think, and most of them do."

Arguably, you could say that the moderators have stepped in and put a stop to any thinking on this thread--at least down the lines we're now discussing. So... We may need to take this elsewhere.

Cimarron29414

You are acting like an arrogant ass. The fact that I have drawn my conclusions prior to your liking does not mean they are not thought out. The fact that I have drawn conclusions similar to others who you disagree with does not mean they are not thought out. I did my research years ago and I did it for years. I have read dozens of books on the subject, from both sides of the issue. I need not justify my conclusions to someone who believes they were derived by "not thinking".

What other human emotion motivates a person to slash the throats of women serving Coke to children, hack up pilots, and fly a 747 into a building filled with thousands of people, men, women and children? Find me the complex intellectual thought behind that motivation. The fact that I summarize it to a single word does not mean that I wasn't thinking.

...and perhaps, since we all get to witness your thinking outloud now, perhaps, just perhaps, the 8:00 hour was the only time in the day where four large passenger planes were leaving at roughly the same time and had the required fuel amounts for the mission - a load large enough to take the plane across country. There, since you are "thinking about it for the first time now"....eight years later, perhaps you should add that to your algorithm. Now, if someone wanted to minimize...er, as you put it...not maximize casualties...why not just hijack some puddle jumpers from the Atlanta to Charlotte run and use them? Don't answer that, the smoke from your thinking is stinking up the place.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

I just want to quote myself here to acknowledge that my disappointment with the moderation action earlier on is in the background here, lending un-needed snark to my postings. I'm sorting that out with the moderators via PM as we speak. I apologize for anything you are left with out of my communicating so passive-aggressively about it.

I love our moderators, they do amazing work, and everyone makes mistakes including most DEFINITELY me.

Rekna

If they wanted to minimize casualties they could have done it on a holiday. This would likely have also increased the media attention as everyone would be glued to their TV's instead of at work. Also they could have picked high profile/low death targets (washington monument, statue of liberty, etc). The terrorists wanted to kill a lot of people. The early AM flight could have been due to a couple of reasons. 1) That is when a bunch of long distance flights in the largest airplanes took off at the same time, 2) where they could get the tickets they wanted, 3) just because, 4) wanted to catch everyone in their cars and bring new york to a stand still, etc

Cynthetiq

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- last warning: keep the discussion on Glen Beck, we're trying to see if we can prune this discussion into another thread, but for the meantime, please get back on to Glen Beck discussion. If not the thread will be locked until we can figure it out.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Plan9

Here's a question from an outsider:

How is Glenn Beck any different than Rush the Slush or O'Reilly? Why would he have "fooled" anybody anymore than those guys?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Cynthetiq

Nothing. All of them are entertainers via Opinion Editorial pages, but moving and talking heads.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Plan9

How do they develop particular slices of followers? It's all the same gospel, right? I'm confused.

What separates the Big 3?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Cimarron29414

Does anyone know her poll numbers this week? dksuddeth?

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

While this line of questioning implies that those who answer it or are knowledgable are clearly blind followers, I will take a crack.

Limbaugh - only radio
Hannity - radio and TV
Beck - radio and TV

Limbaugh and Hannity - 100% GOP all the way
Beck - both parties are bad, vote for people who have integrity and share your values

Limbaugh and Hannity - GOP wins in November and the country keeps chugging along
Beck - path is unsustainable, build a bunker, fill it with food and water. Doesn't matter who is in power - they are both the same.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Plan9

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick. We're all followers of one type of gospel or another to a large extent.

I just wanted the perspective of someone who had enough experience with this side to explain it.

Your summary, however accurate it may be, probably saved me about 3 hours on Google. I appreciate it.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dippin

Beck is as much a GOP shill as the other two. It's just a slightly different type of GOP he shills for. Limbaugh and Hannity are 100% GOP all the way, indeed. Beck is fringe conspiracy GOP, but still GOP. Heck, in the radio show that started this thread the guy ends up endorsing Rick Perry.

The difference between Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity is the fringe conspiracy part. And I'm not talking "Obama is a secret Muslim" type of conspiracy, but the "there is a conspiracy for a one world government going on and that can be traced back to communist Rockefeller" type of conspiracy.

kutulu

No, Beck is "Both parties are bad... so vote Republican"

Jinn

I'm confused. I thought everyone knew Glenn Beck was a shill for the GOP/teabaggers?

I think the real news is about whether or not he raped two girls in 1990..


DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com: Home Page

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pan6467

From your quoted site. The site is good and has great points, however, if you were serious about thinking Beck raped and murdered a woman in 1990, you missed the whole point of the site.

The site itself kind of uses the tactics Beck does and throws them right back at him.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

Pan, look over there. That thing zooming by? That's the point. I think you missed it.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

kutulu

We are just asking questions. Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?