Originally written by Salmaan Kureemun on April 19, 2008 7:40 PM Hey Fong, you still believe 9/11 was carried out by 19 arabs with box cutters? Do you still throw away all the arguments that the scholars and engineers have produced to debunk the official version of the events that took place on 9/11? I feel really sorry for people who, after all that evidence, still won't accept that they were fooled into believing the fairy tale that the War on Terror is NOT a scam. You're welcome to check this and draw your own conclusions: http://www.ae911truth.org/ If you dare to know more, then check out this one too: http://stj911.org/ Hope you find your way to reality.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

As far as I know, they are not Palestinians and Palestinians didn't wan't to be associated with al-Qaeda (at least from public reports). And I don't think box cutters count for anything in the destruction.

I suppose I'm not the only one who believe that 9/11 did actually happen. The War on Terror with regard to Afghanistan has global support but not the one with regard to Iraq. Maybe you can be more specific?

Hi, Salmaan:

Come to think of it, going by your insertions in other fora, I think what you are trying to get at is "US conspiracy" and not Burma or Palestinian point of view, or the likes.

Why not open a new thread called "US conspiracy"?

Originally written by Salmaan Kureemun on April 19, 2008 8:56 PM You bet that if a certain Fong would respond to a post about a PALESTIAN(see, this is relevant to the thread) activist helping children, who is widely appreciated in the US, Texas by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, by foisting the "funding terrorism" piece of trash in my face that I would want to explain to that deceptive tactic by reminding him that the supposed "war on terror" is but a SCAM. Then he cunningly responds with building straw men who he then attacks hoping that that would fool someone as to what he is really up to. Then he comes around and says that it was me who brought up "US conspiracy". Well, if some Bunch or Fong would use DECEPTION and LIES, either intentionally or out of pure ignorance that their facts have been cooked up to appear as true, then I do them the favor of giving people the other version of facts, from people who have more credibility than media outlets working on behalf of the war machine, so that they can draw their own conclusions.

Calm down.

I din't say I believe in that piece. You invited the readers to join the dots and your piece mentioned FBI, didn't you?

I was only pointing out that the FBI could be investigating the flow of money (due to their definition of terrorist), and that they were different views in the US.

If you think that was a deceptive piece, you are hereby invited to discuss it in a logical manner and clear it up.

Thank you.

Originally written by Salmaan Kureemun on April 19, 2008 9:17 PM You will never quit using deception, will you? I brought up two of your deceptive tactics in my previous posts and you ignore them and bring up another point. I will not waste my time arguing with cheap souls.

It's your choice, you have that right and I respect it although I think that it would have been more helpful if you can point out that the recipients of the aid from the charity are the innocent children caught up in the war, or debate the definition of terrorist (whether it means everyon in Gaza, etc). You have to be more specific in your arguments to sound plausible.

Hi Salmaan,

The problem with your posts is not what you are saying it, but that the manner in which you are writing is not in line with the tone of a professional forum.  Contributions should be factual, to the point, and preferably intelligently presented.  Emotionalism, labeling either contributions or contributors does not belong in this forum.  We do not call contributions "trash".  We do not show our disrespect for each other by calling each other by their last name without a Mr., though calling each other by the first name is usual and acceptable.  While many people have strong feelings, with good reason for them, emotionalism that attacks or labels contributions or contributors is not the correct way of expressing this.

Maxi

We could as well continue this in the RE: Rumsfeld says UA93 shot down thread.

Jacek