-161 votes

To the Minions of Alex Jones

Are there any terrorists in the world or is every single act of terrorism a plot by the New World Order?

And, if there are no terrorists, then how can any of you be a Ron Paul fan when Ron Paul believes that 9-11 was a terrorist attack. Does anybody remember when Ron Paul took on Rudy Giuliani by saying 9-11 was a derivative of our foreign policy? Kind of proves that he doesn't believe Dick Cheney did it, doesn't it?

That being said, I ask the question again. Are there any terrorists out there?

Are Ron Paul and the rest of us still "sleeping?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fair and reasonable to you (which is fine by the way)

To someone who happens to view the output from Infowars as relevant and meaningful (even if partially so) its insulting from the get go.

A minion is defined as: a follower devoted to serve his/her master relentlessly.

So the word in the title is pejorative. Its insulting and demeaning in its intent from the get go. From there it offers an either/or question as if that sums us the position of the minions vs. himself. Ignoring there are many levels of in between here.

After this the OP goes on to claim Dr Paul as falling on one side of this either/or. Not recognizing the depth of responses he has given in different interviews, the limitation of him saying anything polarizing on this topic as it relates to his other (and even more important) endeavors.

You take the name calling a step further (which is obviously your right) and then shout that its a civil dialogue. You are engaging in the same antics you are decrying.

The truth is that there are a lot of vociferous JOnes/INfowars supporters on this site who may tend towards extreme support *as is thier right). ANd then there are many more who take it for what it is....another resource of information. Some incredibly unique, insightful, and important information. Along with bombast, bluster, fallacy, and the like.

I think the debate would be better served in finding common ground instead of drawing lines of separation. And IMO, this would start with realizing the post is insulting and demeaning (as are many responses).

Why punish people on the DP for believing differently if they support the core beliefs that you do? Why spite Rand in 2016 if he represents your most acceptable candidate.

I would guess that there is MUCH more in common than in difference.



When a group of people follow somebody else who has no evidence-backed information, those people are mindlessly following. AJ has been discredited so often that there is no reason to ever take anything he says as a credible. You have to proof of what you say when you say it. AJ doesn't have that; therefore, these people who believe anything that he says are minions.

There's nothing insightful about non-evidence-backed information. Your just playing with yourself.

You should really look...at how a

self described libertarian uses pitiful logic to call names and paint with a broad brush.

There is plenty of evidence for many stories covered on Infowars (they run many MSM media stories you laud elsewhere in this thread...more on that in a moment).

To try and paint it ALL as having no evidence is absurd and beyond logic or reason. It is obvious that you have an agenda on this thread that is roundly unaccepted and disproven based on your need to use superlatives and generalities. Maybe if you toned down the air of superiority you would actually reach people (as you professed to want to do often). But in reality it seems you simply like the attention as sad as that is.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that the Gov and MSM provide multiple sources for some stories and should be considered. But they also have been discredited countless times. You then go on to say Infowars should be wholly ignored because they have been discredited.

You should try for some more rigor in your argumentation and a little less bravado in your obvious inconsistencies. Without that you are the one playing with yourself. And doing it in public no less...with people laughing at you while you are at it.

You prove to be more divisive than your subject of ridicule. Well done.

I call it like I see it


Alex Jones

is a showman...with scatter-shot theories

sounds just like Fox, ABC,

sounds just like Fox, ABC, NBC, news.... Which one was saying it was going to be a right wing nut job bomber because it was tax day?



Best post I have seen in

Best post I have seen in sometime. If you are not a Writer consider taking it up!

It is not a fair and reasonable post

because the title is:

"To the Minions ..."

This post is titled as an insult to Alex Jones supporters. I don't like Alex because I don't like over the top sensationalism for news but I can read and when you are inferring someone to be one's minion it is about as "fair and reasonable" as much as Fox News is fair and balanced.

Furthermore ... if you are going to make an UNCIVIL post inferring people are minions at least have the common decency to define your terms.

What constitutes a terrorist?


I agree 100%

This post wasn't even disrespectful. Just tried to open an honest conversation.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

You're a good guy Nicholson

I know you don't need to hear it from me; but I want to say it.

Paid misinforments...the new trend..

Paid misinforments...the new trend..

Be very careful..The Daily Paul is swarming with them now. It's a compliment to the Daily Paul but a detriment to those who would seek truth..

Participate in America's future- Research Ron Paul- Truth will Prevail! You too, will be proud one day, to be able to say: "I was a Ron Paul supporter."

Please do not drag Dr Paul into your tirad...

Of course there are terrorists. Not even Alex jones disputes this. The question is who funds them? A- western governments.

That is the point.


Liberty = Responsibility

Not to mention whom profits?

Not to mention whom profits? Sure doesn't look like the Taliban. The US military industrial complex appears to do well every time blood spills.

Following the money...

is not perfect and proves nothing without secondary sources.

Ron Paul knows 911 was an inside job.

Meaning, done with the blessing of our rogue criminal govt. he just couldn't admit it publicly. That'd be political suicide. That's why Rand stays clear of that conversation. He wants to stay alive.

And of course, there are terrorists out there who are independent. It's just that most that have money are funded by and creations of our CIA.

Thus Ron Paul stating at a JBS meeting that there was a coup in our country, where the CIA took over long ago. He wasn't joking.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

I don't agree

the problem with "inside job", is that it washes the slate clean and offers NO accountablity, no justice, no solutions, no answers.. just more YouTubes..

Ron Paul said 911 was "blowback", from our meddling and being over there.

By saying that it is blowback, Ron Paul is not saying 911 is an inside job, but that 19 terrorists attacked the WTC because of our foreign policy.

Ron Paul is not a truther. I am not a truther, but like Ron Paul, truthers have the right to enjoy their conspiracy theories about 911 or not.

So you believe the Taliban conspiracy theory.

You know the one where the Taliban conspired to scuttle the Unocal pipeline unless they got a fair offer.

Problem is the only evidence of Commercial Airliners where photoshopped images green screened over the skyline.

No plane, no highjackers, means someone invented a conspiracy to fit their needs.

Free includes debt-free!


I believe the U.N. Agenda 21 conspiracy theroy that says when Bush signed Kyoto Agreement, buildings like the WTC were unable to be legally demolished.

And yet, there she sat, a big white elephant, bleeding money on prime NY real estate, a perpetual funnel of garbage blown off the ocean was it's confetti parade.. 80% was unoccupied, tourists weren't interested, NY business was not interested, US government was not interested, no one was frankly interested in being occupants of the WTC, and since the Petron towers were standing at the tallest buildings at the time.. WTC needed to come down.

Now if it was an "inside job", the U.N. would be all over it.. USA broke Kyoto treaty. Don't forget, Clinton refused to sign, and conservatives were absolutely SHOCKED Bush signed.. and that signature made it an international job.

Because it is an international job, 911 Truth becomes pawns for the UN.. how? HATE AMERICA

What's GOOD about America? Once you've come to hate your nation, it makes it easier to lose and accept a NWO.

If you don't think you're being brainwashed by YouTubes and conspiracy theory by design, forcing you to stay in a box or be subject to downvotes and bully offenses, personal attacks like name calling and insults.. 911 truth is passion, but not very deep.. loops a lot.. how many times have you watched the towers fall?

So, like the many conspiracy theories throughout history, we have another, that will not be solved, will not bring justice or truth.

It was born on illusion and that's where it remains, kept alive by those who have nothing better to do than watch YouTubes about 911 Truth, and find people to insult who don't agree.

Have you got any proof that

Have you got any proof that kyoto doesn't allow buildings like WTC to be demolished?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

That didn't prove anything.

That didn't prove anything. Where does it say that buildings like the WTC can't be demolished?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

WTC was not sustainable


FAIL! We The People know

FAIL! We The People know what you are!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Wow, a mindreader.

And to think I actually fell for his argument that 9/11 was blowback from our foreign policy. I mean, he always seemed so sincere to me when he stated that. But, then, I'm not a mindreader.

Military is known for precise

Military is known for precise formulations and crisp language. For these kind of situations military coined word FUBAR.

Engage in Secure Exchange

Yea I hear you... These nut

Yea I hear you...

These nut jobs will soon accuse the government of conspiring to supply guns to Mexican Drug gangs. Then they will accuse the government of conspiring a country has weapons of mass destruction when they know they don't..... What a bunch of nut jobs!

Then they will accuse the government

of conspiring a country has weapons of mass destruction when they know they don't.

What does this mean ? And what does it have to do with the OP

Your logic matches your use of language.

Basically you are saying.

1 The government did some bad things
2. Blowing up bombs during the Boston Marathon was a bad thing.
3 Therefore the government blew up bombs during the Boston marathon.

--this is faulty logic, if you can't tell.

You appear to be running a

You appear to be running a little low on logic yourself... The thread is very much aimed at why people would believe the government would be behind bombings such as Boston and 9/11. That is what I assumed this post was about "all attacks". As I recall we have only had the Boston attack since 9/11.

It is very well documented Collen Powell was lied to about WMD. It was a conspiracy.

Why do people believe the government to be behind conspiracies? Because they have been so many times.

Cheat me once shame on you... cheat me twice shame on me.

Never once did I say the government bombed Boston please learn to pay attention to what you read and will work on my use of language

There is a difference

Between trusting what the government says, and believing that every terrorist incident is directed by the government. If you look at the first post from this thread, that was the claim.

In response, I asked for just one incident where it was proven that the US government directed the attack, or where the incident lead back to the US government.

The closest we have so far are some cases where it is likely that the US government funded terrorist cells in soviet block countries, but this is not a directed event. Proof is available evidence, like a document, or an arrest of a CIA agent.