Selected parts of comment-stream to Pardon Him:
-5
don nash · June 10th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
I'd post a comment but it might send Raimondo into another unexpected insulting tirade.
+2
+2
IDHolm · June 11th, 2013 at 3:07 am
Note: My intended recipients are antiwar.com and bona fide antiwar
activists; no other person or agency on this planet is extended any
right to read or record this submission; any violators self-convict
themselves and may proceed directly to gaol - or, preferably, go to
hell.
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
@don nash, does "unexpected insulting tirade" have anything to do with the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?
Re article theme, surely a petition to the White House implies some sort of functional democracy, an implication now so far from reality as to be risible?
But IF pardon for Snowden THEN kindly add Manning, plus just retribution to be visited upon his tormentors.
Apropos, three things really amaze me; a) the depth of the deceptions foist upon the entire world, b) the dearth of objections let alone c) the total lack of any effective resistance (actually a violation of Newton's 3rd law!)
Q: Where are all the decent people; have they meekly collapsed into mute acquiescence and if so why this abject surrender in the face of such horrendous evil?
5 replies ·
What? "...terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt
steel skyscrapers?" You goof, I made no mention of jet-fuel fires
melting steel skyscrapers. Jet-fuel fires are incapable of melting steel
skyscrapers. I took a shot at Raimondo and that's it. No further
inference should be drawn. Raimondo had a moment of insulting pissy and
rather than defend his doofus adoration of Rand Paul, Raimondo got
insulting with me. I was offended by that. I'm still offended by that.
Offended by Raimondo. When I toogled on Ditz' 'Pardon Him' column, no
one had left any remark and I took the opportunity to poke at Raimondo.
I'll more than likely do it again. Raimondo all of sudden seems overly
pretentious.
So ID-man if you'd like to pick a fight, stick to the issues.
So ID-man if you'd like to pick a fight, stick to the issues.
+1
XXX · June 11th, 2013 at 9:11 am
Troll -- and a bad one at it. Everyone knows raimundo and Libertarians
cherish RON Paul's movement and campaigns, non Rand Paul. Actually,
Raimundo, et al have been critical and leery toward Sen. Rand Paul.
Holy crap XXX now you're just being dense. Raimondo is rarely
"critical" of Rand Paul. As for "troll" I don't think so. I've hung out
at Antiwar.com for a very long time. Could be my changing to my real and
actual name and ditching the screen name I used to use is causing some
confusion. Formerly 'Skulz Fontaine' but after the NSA crap hit the fan,
I'm going with my given name so as not to confuse the Stasi. Oh yes and
by the by, Rand Paul is NOT even close to being good enough to mention
with Rand's father Dr. Ron Paul. Remember that Rand dissed his father
and endorsed Mitt Romney in the last presidential. Rand Paul is carrying
one staggering credibility deficit.
0
Guest · June 12th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
You're right about Raimondo, Don. He went way over the top with me too
when I had the audacity to voice my opinion that disagreed with his
received wisdom. The man definitely has problems, "Internet Dictator
Syndrome' being one of them. The hell with him and this pathetic
website.
Hi Guest:
There certainly is an air of pretense that has settled over the domain of Antiwar.com and Raimondo is not the only 'ego' suffering a case of 'I'm self-important'. It's offensive and demeaning. Hell, I can get that kind of abuse on Buzzflash. Considering I don't have to put up with it, I don't and won't. Same applies to Antiwar.com.
Eric Garris might want to remind the staff and crew about offending contributors. Contributing during the Antiwar.com beg-a-thons.
There certainly is an air of pretense that has settled over the domain of Antiwar.com and Raimondo is not the only 'ego' suffering a case of 'I'm self-important'. It's offensive and demeaning. Hell, I can get that kind of abuse on Buzzflash. Considering I don't have to put up with it, I don't and won't. Same applies to Antiwar.com.
Eric Garris might want to remind the staff and crew about offending contributors. Contributing during the Antiwar.com beg-a-thons.
+2
IDHolm · June 11th, 2013 at 11:37 am
@don nash June 11th, 2013 at 6:21 am
Since you didn't mention 'jet-fuel fires melting steel skyscrapers' on this thread, and by your "incapable" comment, I expect that you're never likely to have done so (for to do so would surely be to accept the official narrative that "Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities," say). Perhaps you could try interpreting my comment in a different light ...
@Phil June 11th, 2013 at 5:30 am
Agreed, nothing to be pardoned for; better would be to be left in peace; then add Assange to the list of people to live in a world of the free = unmolested, and free from rogue-regime attack, free from WallSt rip-offs etc..
Since you didn't mention 'jet-fuel fires melting steel skyscrapers' on this thread, and by your "incapable" comment, I expect that you're never likely to have done so (for to do so would surely be to accept the official narrative that "Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities," say). Perhaps you could try interpreting my comment in a different light ...
@Phil June 11th, 2013 at 5:30 am
Agreed, nothing to be pardoned for; better would be to be left in peace; then add Assange to the list of people to live in a world of the free = unmolested, and free from rogue-regime attack, free from WallSt rip-offs etc..
10 replies ·
+1
John · June 12th, 2013 at 7:26 am
You know, if the US government was so competent as to pull off 9/11
(yet somehow cannot keep PRISM a secret) why did they go to all the
trouble of having planes fly into buildings when they could have just
used "thermite" to begin with and blown the buildings up ala a truck
bomb? I mean you nu...I mean professors are really smart and already
figured out the whole conspiracy so there was no point in making an
elaborate overly complicated plan.
Really, George W. Bush's administration is the mastermind behind 9/11....really?? Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.
Really, George W. Bush's administration is the mastermind behind 9/11....really?? Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.
-1
IDHolm · June 12th, 2013 at 11:30 pm
Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' - UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.»
John: “Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.”
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red herring nor argument.
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how it could have been better engineered.
I'll leave it to any audience to interpret: «I mean you nu...I mean»
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.»
John: “Oh and by the way your "jet fuel fires don't melt steel" argument is a red herring.”
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red herring nor argument.
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how it could have been better engineered.
I'll leave it to any audience to interpret: «I mean you nu...I mean»
0
John · June 13th, 2013 at 8:49 am
My full text in context is “the terminally self-insulting belief that
jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?” - Which is neither red
herring nor argument.
The implication is there that you question the veracity of the official explanation of 9/11, or at least really really bugged that Raimondo does not question 9/11. No one in this thread mentioned skyscrapers or jet fuel until you brought it up. Arguments are statements or questions that can be true or false. You posted an irrelevant (to the topic) question in the hope of throwing any argumentation on the thread into your topic, hence a red herring.
The implication is there that you question the veracity of the official explanation of 9/11, or at least really really bugged that Raimondo does not question 9/11. No one in this thread mentioned skyscrapers or jet fuel until you brought it up. Arguments are statements or questions that can be true or false. You posted an irrelevant (to the topic) question in the hope of throwing any argumentation on the thread into your topic, hence a red herring.
0
John · June 13th, 2013 at 9:00 am
*Alleged* Arab/Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings serve at
least three purposes; 1st they provide a purported mechanism for the
spectacular, partly free-fall collapse of WTC1&2 (but not WTC7), 2nd
they increase the fear&loathing being deliberately engendered in
the 'West' against Arab/Muslims, and 3rd they aid the Zs in their
continuing supreme international crimes against the same Arab/Muslims in
general and the hapless, improperly dispossessed Palestinians in
particular. 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving; hard to imagine how
it could have been better engineered
I take it you've never been to the Middle East then. Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up. In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"
I take it you've never been to the Middle East then. Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up. In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 1:06 am
"I take it you've never been to the Middle East then."
Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant.
"either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Haw again.
“In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"”
Just what is your experience with conspiracies?
POD: conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
As "the official explanation of 9/11" would have it, planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 (by now, most have seen the movies - err, TV videos), so that bit is generally accepted. Then there were jet-fuel (plus office-furniture) fires, and WTC 1, 2 *and* 7 fell down, all rather neatly if not dramatically - hence the jet-fuel mention does imply a question as to veracity, and so the "red herring" accusation/hop. (The original dialogue was completed after don nash's "incapable" and then his moving on.)
The standard narrative accuses ObL (@cave, Afghanistan), Atta (@Hamburg then FL etc.) and altogether 20 mostly Saudis (@various flight schools, USA), and since the event was neither notified nor halted beforehand, the conclusion is that the perpetrators of the crime prepared in secrecy. QED; the official explanation *implies* conspiracy.
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, then the speed with which they published a list of alleged hijackers' names *does* imply some sort of foreknowledge, but a pristine alleged hijacker's passport fluttering down out of the towering infernos really does make many go "Hmmm." Note: I personally cannot for the smallest part of a pico-sec second-guess the FBI, CIA and/or Mossad etc., so for the record, I'm *not* commenting on any fore-knowledge - merely relating my personal observations (but see my last para.).
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, namely that jet-fuel fires *can* melt skyscrapers, and that's what the world is asked to accept (believe it or not?) Sooo, anyone care to *lucidly* comment on "the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?"
Now, for only one (shuddering) moment, let's assume that the *3* towers were pre-loaded with explosives. Since we already have the allegation that the 19 hijackers were involved (call this 'conspiracy A/M'), THEN pre-loading would require access - unlikely to be granted to some suspicious, explosive-laden A/Ms, nor anyone *outside* the US(Z) framework, so that would be a supposed 'conspiracy US/Z.' (Yes, Virginia, there is a theory, and two can live as cheaply as one.) It's pretty simple logic along the lines of the IF a THEN b model. IMHO, the key lies in the answer to the jet-fuel fires Q. Hmmm?
Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant.
"either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Haw again.
“In my experience the more involved the "conspiracy" is the less likely it actually is a "conspiracy"”
Just what is your experience with conspiracies?
POD: conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire]
As "the official explanation of 9/11" would have it, planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 (by now, most have seen the movies - err, TV videos), so that bit is generally accepted. Then there were jet-fuel (plus office-furniture) fires, and WTC 1, 2 *and* 7 fell down, all rather neatly if not dramatically - hence the jet-fuel mention does imply a question as to veracity, and so the "red herring" accusation/hop. (The original dialogue was completed after don nash's "incapable" and then his moving on.)
The standard narrative accuses ObL (@cave, Afghanistan), Atta (@Hamburg then FL etc.) and altogether 20 mostly Saudis (@various flight schools, USA), and since the event was neither notified nor halted beforehand, the conclusion is that the perpetrators of the crime prepared in secrecy. QED; the official explanation *implies* conspiracy.
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, then the speed with which they published a list of alleged hijackers' names *does* imply some sort of foreknowledge, but a pristine alleged hijacker's passport fluttering down out of the towering infernos really does make many go "Hmmm." Note: I personally cannot for the smallest part of a pico-sec second-guess the FBI, CIA and/or Mossad etc., so for the record, I'm *not* commenting on any fore-knowledge - merely relating my personal observations (but see my last para.).
The official explanation *implies* that's all there is to it, namely that jet-fuel fires *can* melt skyscrapers, and that's what the world is asked to accept (believe it or not?) Sooo, anyone care to *lucidly* comment on "the terminally self-insulting belief that jet-fuel fires can melt steel skyscrapers?"
Now, for only one (shuddering) moment, let's assume that the *3* towers were pre-loaded with explosives. Since we already have the allegation that the 19 hijackers were involved (call this 'conspiracy A/M'), THEN pre-loading would require access - unlikely to be granted to some suspicious, explosive-laden A/Ms, nor anyone *outside* the US(Z) framework, so that would be a supposed 'conspiracy US/Z.' (Yes, Virginia, there is a theory, and two can live as cheaply as one.) It's pretty simple logic along the lines of the IF a THEN b model. IMHO, the key lies in the answer to the jet-fuel fires Q. Hmmm?
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 4:49 am
"Haw. Risibly off-topic, not to mention totally irrelevant."
Not really, you mentioned Muslims, "Zionists" (in racist code) and the 9/11 terrorist attack. All that has to do with the Middle East where there are many Muslims, "Zionists" and terrorist attacks, converging one might say. It is complex but suffice to say as someone who has spent time in the ME (and I take it by your non-answer that you have not) Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical.
"Just what is your experience with conspiracies?"
My experience is with history, actual history, and explaining Big Historical Events (BHE) by way of overarching government conspiracies is lazy, pseudo-intellectualism. Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own and are propelled more by incompetence than some overarching nefarious plot. 9/11 happened more as a result of human error, an intelligence failure of the worst kind.
As someone who works in that field I can tell you it is filled with rank incompetents. This is the real danger and the main reason why libertarians are (or should be) anti-government. Not because government bureaucracy has some evil designs (that would denote intelligence in our government) but because it is incapable of such design i.e., it is incompetent.
The rest of your diatribe is useless noise.
Not really, you mentioned Muslims, "Zionists" (in racist code) and the 9/11 terrorist attack. All that has to do with the Middle East where there are many Muslims, "Zionists" and terrorist attacks, converging one might say. It is complex but suffice to say as someone who has spent time in the ME (and I take it by your non-answer that you have not) Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical.
"Just what is your experience with conspiracies?"
My experience is with history, actual history, and explaining Big Historical Events (BHE) by way of overarching government conspiracies is lazy, pseudo-intellectualism. Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own and are propelled more by incompetence than some overarching nefarious plot. 9/11 happened more as a result of human error, an intelligence failure of the worst kind.
As someone who works in that field I can tell you it is filled with rank incompetents. This is the real danger and the main reason why libertarians are (or should be) anti-government. Not because government bureaucracy has some evil designs (that would denote intelligence in our government) but because it is incapable of such design i.e., it is incompetent.
The rest of your diatribe is useless noise.
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 5:51 am
"The rest of your diatribe is useless noise."
Entirely your opinion = non-argument = cop-out.
Your failure to address one of the ultimate arguments, namely were the *3* towers pre-rigged or not, speaks volumes = you just can't hack - what you started, by so rudely butting in.
More of my so-called 'diatribe:'
Me (repeat): {Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' – UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of ...}
John: "Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Me: Well done; "Covering up" is *precisely* what conspiracy is about.
Any 'argument' (beginning after John's "You know"), mentions the competency (elsewhere more usually, incompetency) of George W. Bush's administration. Now, consider "inference by omission:"
wiki: Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
POD: omission n. 1 omitting or being omitted. 2 thing omitted.
Q: What was omitted? How may one infer from some omission? Sounds a bit oxymoronic?
(Aside: One may 'normally' encounter omission in the phrase "sins of commission or omission" (About 1,850,000 results), but I'm a *non*-believer, so better choice is "lies of commission or omission" (About 12,500,000 results); lies 'win' vs. sins.)
A: *Perhaps* what was omitted came after "I assume" above?
(Apropos foreknowledge; perhaps one could query Richard Clarke about John O'Neill.)
This is a *big* problem with omission - (paraphrasing) you don't know what you've got, til it's gone...
Entirely your opinion = non-argument = cop-out.
Your failure to address one of the ultimate arguments, namely were the *3* towers pre-rigged or not, speaks volumes = you just can't hack - what you started, by so rudely butting in.
More of my so-called 'diatribe:'
Me (repeat): {Ah, well; I did not mention any govt., nor the alleged war-criminal Bush ('invasion of Iraq illegal' – UN-Sec-Gen Annan).
«Straw man. This is the fallacy of ...}
John: "Oh and my argument was not a strawman it was an inference by omission. I assume that the US government would have had to have at least some foreknowledge even if the "Zionists" were completely behind the attack. They had a lot of intel so either the US government is correct about 9/11 or someone is covering up."
Me: Well done; "Covering up" is *precisely* what conspiracy is about.
Any 'argument' (beginning after John's "You know"), mentions the competency (elsewhere more usually, incompetency) of George W. Bush's administration. Now, consider "inference by omission:"
wiki: Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
POD: omission n. 1 omitting or being omitted. 2 thing omitted.
Q: What was omitted? How may one infer from some omission? Sounds a bit oxymoronic?
(Aside: One may 'normally' encounter omission in the phrase "sins of commission or omission" (About 1,850,000 results), but I'm a *non*-believer, so better choice is "lies of commission or omission" (About 12,500,000 results); lies 'win' vs. sins.)
A: *Perhaps* what was omitted came after "I assume" above?
(Apropos foreknowledge; perhaps one could query Richard Clarke about John O'Neill.)
This is a *big* problem with omission - (paraphrasing) you don't know what you've got, til it's gone...
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 6:27 am
Not a cop-out, I just don't indulge silliness. Anything I say to you
never get through. Your mind has been made up a long time ago it
appears.
It is no surprise you are a "non believer" (in truth there are no atheists though, read your Tillich) since consipracy theories are usually a "replacement" for religion. Here you are ranting to a total stranger about 9/11 13 years after it happened on antiwar dot com on a thread for Pardoning Snowden, so methinks you are a "true believer."
I can sit here and respond to your comments all day, all month, all week, all year until I have the last word (and I will eventually have the last word) but it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk.
It is no surprise you are a "non believer" (in truth there are no atheists though, read your Tillich) since consipracy theories are usually a "replacement" for religion. Here you are ranting to a total stranger about 9/11 13 years after it happened on antiwar dot com on a thread for Pardoning Snowden, so methinks you are a "true believer."
I can sit here and respond to your comments all day, all month, all week, all year until I have the last word (and I will eventually have the last word) but it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk.
0
John · June 14th, 2013 at 6:28 am
Sorry should read: conspiracy
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 7:27 am
This comment has been deleted by the administrator.
0
IDHolm · June 14th, 2013 at 7:29 am
Seems like I've been gagged - bye.
Censored input:
"it won't be to indulge in your consipracy talk. ... Sorry should read: conspiracy"
Well, who provocatively jumped in, using slurs = non-arguments? Sure, "It is not simple," but looking for an explanation does not imply accusing govts. of conspiracy - unless that's the way the evidence points.
“"Zionists" (in racist code)” is an allegation deliberately made = yet another slur - or would you claim "Der, [you] didn't think?" - such scurrilous allegations are simply not done in polite society. And so the postings go - now look up the definition of Zionist (I'll help):
POD: Zionism n. movement for the re-establishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Zionist n. & adj.
Zionism is racist by both definition and practice; since you hook onto my admitted non-belief; the Zionists *believe* that some supernatural being, namely their god, promised them pre-UNGA181 Palestine; the same god who ordered "Thou shalt not kill (or lie, steal etc.)." So [Q:] What do the Zionists (claiming to be Jews), do? A: They murder Palestinians in order to steal their land/property, then (hasbara) lie about it. *This* is one central problem in the ME, that plus oil, which the UK has coveted since their navy was changed from coal (pre-WW1), and US continues to covet ("stupendous source of strategic power;" officially documented, do your own research), hence the UK/US support for the ME Airstrip One = Israel. I don't need to go there - nor do I want to, and wouldn't go anywhere near there - in a fit. Then "Al Qaeda as sole perpetrators of 9/11 is logical." Pfui = "lazy, pseudo-intellectualism."
The towers fell - were felled. WTC7 was not even hit. Look at the videos. Pfui. What have libertarians to do with the price of fish? More pfui.
More risible: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - explain exactly how inertia was overcome in WTCs 1, 2 & 7. So far none offered, one suspects you can't, except to bleat "Al Qaeda did it." Talk about simplistic.
Then: "Historical events sometimes have an inertia all their own" - are we merely to be helpless passengers? Inertia is defined as "no change without force" - what are you doing to rescue the world's grave situation = marauding rogue-regimes smashing innocent (but resource-rich) countries, murdering their innocent inhabitants? All accelerated after 9/11 – coincidence? I think not.
-=*=-
Fazit: It is more than just a little bit odd, to censor valid commentary - on a thread deep into such a 'free speech' topic. The reader can guess just as well as I, as to the reason(s) behind antiwar censorship; tip: I dared to address 'the Jewish problem' = murdering to steal land/property never to be theirs, by the illegitimate entity = Zionist-created Israel. It means that antiwar either sympathises with and/or is coerced by that filthy 5th column.
