...over frustration with talking to a conspiracy nut. The guy was
preemptively certain that if a nuke ever went off in an American city that it would
have to be the work of the US government, that it could not possibly be terrorists, especially not the apparently completely fictional Al Qaeda.
With no indication that this poster was just being glib and responding positively to humor me, he readily and eagerly agreed with the following:
Any fact that disagrees with your pre-ordained conclusion will be judged a fabrication of the corporate media, any slightest inconsistency, coincidence, or unanswered question will be taken as the "smoking gun", and every denial by those you've already judged guilty will taken as (false) denial and a cover-up.
Thinking like that is the only defense there is against letting "them" fool you, right?
So you know, absolutely know, that not just in the past but in the future too that it's utterly, completely impossible for anyone other than the US government to set off a nuke that kills Americans?
I'll bet a meteor could slam into a city (not just an American city) and you'd probably be dead certain that it REALLY was a nuke, set off by the US government (which is just the puppet of some bigger THEM), and you'd be with the people pouring over the pictures declaring every stray pixel you didn't understand a sure sign that the so-called meteor was just faked, laughing bitterly to yourself how the "sheeple" fall for it.
Come to think of it, the Tunguska event was probably just the US, having already made huge secret strides in nuclear development, preemptively striking the Soviet Union before it even existed!!!
That last comment of my earned this response:
Given the history of US war atrocities, corporate pirates & war criminal Pentagon sociopaths, yes.
That's the point where I made the post that got deleted. It's hard to contain frustration with that kind of thinking. Then, true to form, this poster interpreted my frustration as "hitting a nerve", yet another predictable way of twisting everything in the world into evidence that he's right.
The closest this guy ever came to admitting he might be wrong was to merely dismiss the odds that he could been wrong as too small to concern himself with. He basically admitted (as was proud of it!) that any new facts can't possibly matter because he's already (in his view) got enough facts to dismiss anything contrary to his views as disinformation that he's not going to let himself get fooled by.