CE, 9/11 Thread / Flames

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We funded other groups who were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, but we never funded Osama bin Laden or the Taliban directly.

[Guest fk teale]

You see Marney, you just have to be right, you can not be wrong

WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO'S RIGHT, JUST APOLOGIZE ANYWAYS.

 

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO ANTAGONISTIC ABOUT EVERYTHING, CAN'T WE JUST HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION?

 

CRY SOB WEEP WHINE GLUG GLUG COOKING SHERRY GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUHBULUGHLBUGH

 

God, you're all women.

 

In related news, some people's idea of "big words" would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. "Fatuous" constitutes an ostentatious display of lexical prowess? Holy hell.

[Guest Dames Edna]

Whats wrong with being a woman?

[Guest DrTom]

However, while there is physical evidence that Elvis is dead, there isn't such concrete evidence that there was no conspiracy...at least, not that I'm away of.

 

No one will ever be able to prove there wasn't a Grand Government Conspiracy at work on 9/11 of last year. There are two reasons for this.

 

1. You can't argue with conspiracy theorist, as has already been stated.

2. It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

 

The burden of proof in this conspiracy theory crap (and that's exactly what it is) falls on the people making the absurd claims in the first place. They never seem to have anything in the way of evidence, while there's plenty of evidence that suggests 9/11 was a terrorist attack by a hostile, external organization.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Re: #2

False. It is possible to prove a negative insofar as it is possible to prove anything. It's just that for some people no amount of proof will ever suffice. Cf #1.

[Guest J*ingus]

::scratches head:: Wow. This is the first and maybe only time I've ever seen a knock-down, drag-out flamewar turn into a polite courtroom debate over who did what first and which was wrong.