Are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"?

[Dash80]

I'm inclined to believe many truthers are more like jihad antagonists with the racist views that "there's no way a bunch of cave-dwelling arabs could pull this off"

Anneliese

 

[Scott Sommers]

Oh, dear! I seem to have vexed you without meaning to. I can assure you this is not an issue of great importance to me although it seems to be to you. As I stated elsewhere, I pay seldom pay much attention to the TM these days and mainly visit this forum to find videos for my blog.

Part of the problem (if there is one) may have been caused by the strict definition of apologist in the OP.




I also said that jihad apology (the term was coined to my knowledge by Mark Roberts and not by me) is the effect of thruthism. I don't see that most truthers are conscious jihad apologists by the definition above.

Do you see what I'm getting at? To be a jihad apologist you would have to believe that jihadist terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11 and give arguments to defend or justify those attacks. The "inside job" truthers do not believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11.

LIHOP trutherism may be an exception but keep in mind that LIHOP (in its trutherist form) sees the 9/11 terrorists as dupes for the "inside job" carried out by agents of the U.S. government. So LIHOPers are not defending or justifying jihad given the definition above.

A more accurate description of trutherism re: jihad was given by twinstead above.



Also by beachnut.




In other words (and I've said this before) jihad apology is the effect of trutherism, not its underling motivation.

And, as I've also said, this is of no great importance to me and I'll stop posting on this thread but will be happy to read anything you have to contribute. I don't know about Taiwan, but it's a beautiful Spring day where I'm at and I intend to go out and enjoy it.

Thank you. This is much clearer now. It would appear I have misunderstood your question all along. Although I should point out that our JREF friend mehmetin does NOT believe that Muslims had anything to do with 911 and that it was all dem jooes who really did it. I think by our new understanding, this would mean he is also not a jihad apologist.

So now I understand, although many Truthers believe that Muslims have been framed for all this, they are not jihad apologists in the sense you and Mark mean it. Although it does now raise questions about the OP. Why would you then ask, are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"? It would be like asking if any Creation Scientists are evolutionary theorists.

I hope you enjoy your day outside. And while it is also a nice day here, I must go to the library.

 

[Walter Ego]

Thank you. This is much clearer now. It would appear I have misunderstood your question all along. Although I should point out that our JREF friend mehmetin does NOT believe that Muslims had anything to do with 911 and that it was all dem jooes who really did it. I think by our new understanding, this would mean he is also not a jihad apologist.

So now I understand, although many Truthers believe that Muslims have been framed for all this, they are not jihad apologists in the sense you and Mark mean it. Although it does now raise questions about the OP. Why would you then ask, are Truthers "Jihad Apologists"? It would be like asking if any Creation Scientists are evolutionary theorists.

I did post one rather blatant example of jihad apology on this thread, Ward Churchill's online essay "Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens with its infamous "little Eichmanns" characterization of some of the WTC workers killed that day.

An excerpt from Churchill's essay:

[The 9/11 terrorists] did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite... If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The thing is, though, Churchill is not a 9/11 truther.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Jihad means "striving in the way of God" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad. But if this meaning is warped to mean the oxymoron "holy war" there is no such thing. There can be no apologies for mass murder. Whoever did 9/11 is despicable and should be brought to justice. If it is Osama Bin Laden, he should be formally indicted. If he was set up as the fall guy, whoever did this should be indicted.

 

[beachnut]

Jihad means "striving in the way of God" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad. But if this meaning is warped to mean the oxymoron "holy war" there is no such thing. There can be no apologies for mass murder. Whoever did 9/11 is despicable and should be brought to justice. If it is Osama Bin Laden, he should be formally indicted. If he was set up as the fall guy, whoever did this should be indicted.

Who did 911. They are dead. Irony, it will take UBL years, maybe 20 to find the next set of morons who are willing to kill and die because he is a chicken and failure, kind of like 911 truth. UBL will freely admit he helped make 911 happen, unlike 911 truth who make up lies and spread false information.

Truthers apologize for terrorists with delusions based on ignorance and shoddy, incomplete research. Lack of critical thinking.