War

[Queso]

Care to provide the evidence? Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for 911.

FOXNews.com - Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11 - U.S. & World

 

It's all an act.

I wonder how much he got paid to say that?

[Queso]

The "facts" come 50-100 years later when they open up the archives.

 

Where are these archieves?

[Buffy]

It's all an act.

I wonder how much he got paid to say that?

bin Laden is doing a better job than the entire "liberal media" of ensuring that Bush becomes known as the biggest and most impotent buffoon in US history.

 

Why would Bush pay him to do that?

 

Start making sense,

Buffy

[Queso]

none of this makes sense, especially not I, the confused monkey.

from the evidence I've seen,

bin laden and bush are allies and have been for a very long time.

al queda didn't even exist until the media started talking about "them"

May I please speak to the president about the truth?

OK Didn't think so.

 

Bin ladin is a scapegoat, a dying old junky.

they needed someone, something

to pin all of this on, away from america, over accross the sea, right in the middle of oil land. GO GET EM BOYS! Die trying.

 

And in my opinion,

osama isn't doing anything to make bush look like a buffoon.

 

Osama is old news, man.

they scapegoated him, went on a big ol hunt for him, and then once they never found him pretty much forgot about him.

 

Also...

I've seen videos of him

and some of them aren't even him.

There are videos on the net that show them side by side and you can clearly see it's another guy sometimes. (especially one of the very first ones that was broadcasted where he's wearing that big camo jacket. psh)

 

Saddam did this a lot too, he had a few guys that dubbed in for him from time to time.

And hey, speaking of which,

why the hell did they kill him? Oh wait! I know . .

[Queso]

Can't you see this is a SICK JOKE?

A GAME

that runs on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There will be deaths.

There will be lies.

There will be deceit.

 

Blessed be the future monkeys who obtain the truth of these times.

Many lessons will be taught FROM the millenium.

All of this confusion, this hated, this nationalism and PATRIOTISM

will all be learned from, and evolution will dig deeper

killing the weak and the unlucky

slowly but surely.

 

I stand confused, and can clearly see the lies spit, one after the other,

forming a chain link fence around my forests.

We all have ideas,

they are ALL invalid until the machine leaks it's divine information.

 

At this point, none of us know.

Nobody. Not one single American.

 

Isn't that...sad?

[Queso]

what matters here is awareness...

 

right?

 

I know our views differ... but one thing's for sure;

 

the souls that embody americas government are evil. evil. evil.

[Michaelangelica]

Nah, they're just like the whacko extremist Christians: They all *want* The Apocalypse because it will prove them right and

 

 

Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be more easily ascribed to stupidity,

Buffy

I second the motions.

 

I read somewhere that a large % (30 or 50%?) of USAans (can I use Yanks? I don't want to use Americans because despite USAan belief America is bigger than just the US of A) thought the Apocalypse would happen in the next 10-20 years. No wonder so few bother to vote. (In hard-arsed Australia we fine $$$ you if you don't vote- (probably helps health, education, environment, welfare and science budgets when Labor (USA=Democrats?) are in).

When the Liberals (USA=Republican) defense, rich people, business does well. It's all about who votes for you.

As Gilbert and Sullivan say "The word is made of little liberals or conservatives" or something like that

 

 

Stupid stupid stupid. I vote for stupid

There was a nice study- somewhere- about how the disastrous Bay of Pigs decision was made. The "group-think" psychology of it was fascinating

If I had a memory I'd tell you about it.

 

Getting stupider,

[InfiniteNow]

Stupid stupid stupid. I vote for stupid

There was a nice study- somewhere- about how the disastrous Bay of Pigs decision was made. The "group-think" psychology of it was fascinating

If I had a memory I'd tell you about it.

 

Getting stupider,

 

It's this one:

 

Janis, I. L. (1971, November). Groupthink. Psychology Today, pp.43-46.

 

 

 

...and you can read more about it starting on page 12 of this .pdf:

 

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/directory/jag97/downloads/Influence_and_Persuasion.pdf

 

During the early 1970s, Janis (1971) tried to understand why some very bad decisions were made by high-level advisory groups, especially considering that they were made by powerful and intelligent men. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was one such example. In 1961, then President Kennedy and his advisers came up with a plan to overthrow Fidel Castro by invading Cuba with 1,400 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-trained Cuban exiles. The plan failed. Nearly all of the invaders were quickly captured or killed, the United States was humiliated, and Cuba became even more closely allied with the Soviet Union. Kennedy himself was reported to ask, "How could we have been so stupid?"

 

One might first think that stupid people make stupid decisions. However, Kennedy's Cabinet was hardly stupid...

 

More available at the link above.

[whitbywitchuk]

LOL Yep, in answer to your question, David Icke believes that beings can slip into our perception projecting the required energy field for our narrow perception (and I suppose compared to a lot of organisms we are limited) and that they are invoked by these people who have the correct DNA (bloodline) to play host to them and in return give them status, money and power over others. Unfortunately these beings are void of any emotion and life is not worth a jot.

 

Not saying I believe it, just answering the question. I do believe some of what he says though about the world, and of course I cannot prove that these people are 'possessed'. I did see a disturbing snarl on Larry King though on YouTube which was kinda disturbing, made me shudder lol :). Anyone up for a laugh try sticking Larry King and reptilian into Google video :).

 

 

For the person who asked (now I am in the edit mode I cannot see your name sorry), you can get some declassified stuff through this gateway for starters

 

ww.nsa.gov/public/index.cfm

[Qfwfq]

I think people like conspiracy theories for the same reason we like horror stories: they're scary and adrenaline inducing. But there are plenty of dots to connect without them, and raising them just *detracts* from nailing the idiots who deserve to be vilified for their extreme greed and egos.

I don't "like" them at all and certainly not for that kind of reason. Horror stories are fine enough when they are mere fiction. When I see things that don't match up, I don't close my eyes and pretend. I think what detracts much more is the fact that any suggestion of something being fishy is automatically labeled this way and slighted.

 

Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be more easily ascribed to stupidity

I still don't get why "more easily" when there are things I don't see being explained by stupidity and incompetence.

 

What is a "conspiracy theory" anyway? It is a term used to label the suggestion that there seems to be a conspiracy behind a given event. Down through history there have been conspiracies, I don't see what is so automatically whacko and looney about such suggestions when there is a reason for them. Was it a "conspiracy theory" for Bush, less than 24h after 911, to state with 100% certainty, no shadow of doubt, that bin Laden and the Taleban had planned and organized it? Call that stupid incompetence! He was after all accusing someone, a foreign government, of having conspired against the USA (which had previously backed them up against the Soviets) and so shortly after the event, so unexpected that not even standard preventive measures had been so much as attempted. The label was never slapped on Bush, only on those that raise doubts about him.

 

You're either with us or against us...

[Buffy]

I don't "like" them at all and certainly not for that kind of reason. Horror stories are fine enough when they are mere fiction. When I see things that don't match up, I don't close my eyes and pretend. I think what detracts much more is the fact that any suggestion of something being fishy is automatically labeled this way and slighted.

 

I still don't get why "more easily" when there are things I don't see being explained by stupidity and incompetence.

There's a gigantic line between saying, "this doesn't make sense, lets look closer and see what's going on" to jumping to the conclusion "Bush did it." That calls for exactly the leap of faith that you're railing against:

Was it a "conspiracy theory" for Bush, less than 24h after 911, to state with 100% certainty, no shadow of doubt, that bin Laden and the Taleban had planned and organized it? Call that stupid incompetence! He was after all accusing someone, a foreign government, of having conspired against the USA (which had previously backed them up against the Soviets) and so shortly after the event, so unexpected that not even standard preventive measures had been so much as attempted. The label was never slapped on Bush, only on those that raise doubts about him.

That's because all that evidence compiled for years before he came along which he purposely chose to ignore ("All right, now you've covered your ***.")--because as I said earlier, it *got in the way* of going after Iraq--was just sitting there, as *proof* of the conspiracy.

 

This is the scientific argument here: if you've got a pile of data--most of which points to a conclusion--you can justifiably theorize. If you come up with a wild theory that has no data except for "yeah, they're so evil they would probably do that" then in my view it does not bear even listening to, and it detracts from the *real* evil of those that you're attacking.

 

If you don't pick your battles, you will be dismissed as a raving lunatic. "This is about ROI, man!"

 

I think we're in violent agreement on this Q....

 

I've heard there's a sound proof room off the oval office where he smashes puppies with sledgehammers,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Now that sure is scientific reasoning! :D

 

There's a gigantic line between saying, "this doesn't make sense, lets look closer and see what's going on" to jumping to the conclusion "Bush did it." That calls for exactly the leap of faith that you're railing against:

I did not jump to that conclusion I said there are things that struck me very fishy. If you stretch a person's point, you're reply might be knocking down a strawman.

 

I said that not all of the ideas that have been suggested should be so automatically discarded and ridiculed as looney. I'd like to see convincing contrary arguments and sensible explanations of the incongruities; there's also a gigantic line between that and indiscriminately stigmatizing a whole category of conjectures.

 

That's because all that evidence compiled for years before he came along which he purposely chose to ignore ("All right, now you've covered your ***.")--because as I said earlier, it *got in the way* of going after Iraq--was just sitting there, as *proof* of the conspiracy.

So that's why Condi, before US Congress and after a lot of refusal to appear at all, blamed the CIA for failing to have supplied the necessary intelligence.

 

If you come up with a wild theory that has no data except for "yeah, they're so evil they would probably do that"

Yup, I always just knew they're that evil, so sure of it that it came as no surprise to see such petty little thingies as what came with 911. :rolleyes:

 

If you put your cart before your horse, you might have a lot of trouble steering the way you want to go. Return on investment is definitely the point, especially when the investment was prolly just grabbing an opportunity as it came and a slight effort of quietly blocking standard measures that should have been quite automatic. Is that what you meant by "All right, now you've covered your ***."?

 

I've heard there's a sound proof room off the oval office where he smashes puppies with sledgehammers,

I've heard a lot of rumours and some of them rather dubious, others less dubious and one of them even referring to a source which, for some odd reason, is no longer available on the White House website. I assure you I found it easily around the end of 2003 and later; I still find a lot of similar things from Christmas 2001. When I still knew the name of the journalist that conducted the interview, I couldn't find a direct contact to ask her for confirmation or denial about those unexplained ellipses. :doh: Not that it would have been much use anyway... :cheer:

[Buffy]

Now that sure is scientific reasoning! :D

Thank you! :doh:

I did not jump to that conclusion I said there are things that struck me very fishy. If you stretch a person's point, you're reply might be knocking down a strawman.

I know *you* didn't, Orb did! I wasn't stretching your point and I didn't need to stretch his!

 

As I said in my last post, we're in violent agreement here! :rolleyes:

 

So that's why Condi, before US Congress and after a lot of refusal to appear at all, blamed the CIA for failing to have supplied the necessary intelligence.

There you have it! So to clarify:

Is that what you meant by "All right, now you've covered your ***."?

...is Bush's now well documented response to the CIA's briefing on al Queda in mid-August 2001.

 

I'm not at all claiming there's not lots of fishy stuff that's gone on in this Administration, nor am I saying we should just ignore it as "everybody does it" which seems to be the popular talking point.

 

What I am saying is that whacko conspiracy theories--and I'm not accusing you of supporting any, because that would be *stretching* :rollyeyes: --make it that much harder to make the well-supported accusations of both malfeasance as well as incompetence stick.

 

If one--not you--goes around accusing Bush of beating puppies with sledgehammers, then others do not have to be fond of Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin to be dissuaded from listening to anything else you have to say.

 

The missing ellipses are all over the netroots, and many have run afoul of the waybackmachine and other wonderful features of the Internet that make sure that its not so easy to simply "delete" them from whitehouse.gov.

 

Take me seriously, please, :cheer:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

What I am saying is that whacko conspiracy theories-- :rolleyes: --make it that much harder to make the well-supported accusations of both malfeasance as well as incompetence stick.

As I said, some have suggested it is done on purpose to discredit all the accusations, even the ones that are spooky but ain't whacky.

 

BTW, as I was searching today to see what I could find about the unexplained omissions on the Whitehouse site and the interviewer, I came across this juicy piece, and take a look at the raving lunatic's credentials.

 

With my head in the sand...

[Peregrine]

I don't believe in a god....how can you love your neighbor and then turn around and shoot him in the back for all sort of crazy reasons? God is love????? Give me a break!!!!!. we went to war with irag under false pretenses and only Mr. Bush knows why......

[Michaelangelica]

Heard on The Sideshow ABC TV tonight:-

 

"President Bush is intending to invade Iran.

A spokesman said the war in Iraq was a typo."

An Asian (Vietnamese comic had a wonderful joke that only he could use.:-

"They say Vietnam was the fist war that the media bought into your lounge-room !

It was in my lounge room and we didn't even have a TV !"

:esmoking:

Any oldies out there note the almost total news blackout from Iraq compared with Vietnam? News coverage that I am sure helped bring the war to an earlier close due to rising opposition. What happened to all those "embedded journalists" in Iraq and Kuwait?

Journalists are now no longer permitted to take photos/footage of the coffins coming back or funerals of American Servicemen and women.

As thy say:- "The first casualty of war is the truth."

:ebomb:

[LaurieAG]

And, also, on a global scale, the respect of international law. Which makes a terrorist host country an agressor, seeing as hosting terrorists with the aim of harming another country is an act of war, but also the unilateral invasion of other countries, seen in the light of international law and civilization, is bullyish and barbarian.

 

Boerseun, surely you jest.

 

What about all of the global treaties the USA insists on where you cannot prosecute any US troops for anything they do while in your country! This makes a mockery of International law because, in this respect, the only International law the US appears to be answerable to is one with a stronger military apparatus.