| View previous topic :: View next topic |
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
 |
|
Mick wrote:
| if you have supra-comments about Conspiracy Theories in general you can post |
Why thank you good Sir! I have indeed such comments to make, for it is my contention that disbelief of conspiracy theories in general, like belief in said theories, are equally mere articles of faith.
| anybody who believes in any conspiracies theories (and you clearly do, despite your anguished claims of agnostacy) |
This is your conclusion based on flimsy evidence, so let me come clean - I incline towards the idea that the nature of the observed disintegration of three skyscrapers symetrically into their own footprints at near free-fall acceleration, together with a range of circumstantial data would tend to suggest that more was involved than we are asked to believe by the 'competent' (sic) authorities.
I also incline towards the idea that the most likely suspects for foul play would have to be key players in the US oligarchy.
However, I do not believe this is the case, and am prepared to revise my tentative conclusions if any reasonable evidence could be provided to offer another more convincing explanation.
Therefore I continue to maintain that in spirit I am agnostic upon this point.
However, it is apparent that most shouters on both sides of the debate are mere believers and not thinkers upon the subject.
This can be seen in the way the debate is reduced from reason to emotional response by the facile use of insults ('nut jobs,' 'fruit loops,' 'congenital moronic cretins,' etc.). Fortunately, this type of infatile name-calling is now the last resort in many modern societies, as they have become liberal enough to no longer allow the old, "You have been found guilty of heresy and shall be taken hence to a place of execution!"
The fact that such beliefs are articles of faith is also evidenced by arguments such as:
| It is rather like believing in Christianity or Father Christmas or the Supernatural or Flying Saucers or Crop Circles -- it is prima facie evidence that you are a moronic cretin. |
However, the belief that when political authorities tell their populace that everything is as they say it is, then it must be so is also like believing in Christianity or Father Christmas, when we have been lied to so many times by so many people in exactly their position!
('The Supernatural' 'Flying Saucers' and 'Crop Circles' are of course another matter, which it is impossible to discuss without better definition of what one means by these terms, as they can be applied to a variety of phenomena.)
My contention is also supported by the speed with which said believers resort to such tactics, before they have even seen what is coming. This is known as the 'put your hands over your ears and shout, "You're wrong, you're wrong"' refutation, and never resolves anything!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | However, I do not believe this is the case, and am prepared to revise my tentative conclusions if any reasonable evidence could be provided to offer another more convincing explanation. |
A.E. doesn't bother with evidence.
Read this thread to understand why.
Comment no further until you do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote (Page 3 of this thread):
Ishmael wrote:
| A.E. doesn't bother with evidence. |
So which is it - evidence or not bothering with evidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote:
| What is particularly amusing is that people assume the judges are ipso facto corrupt when they disagree with the verdict and hail them as Solomonic geniuses when they agree. |
Well, I do not assume that the judges are 'ipso facto corrupt' but I do assume that they are ipso facto prime candidates for corruption.
The judiciary, one would imagine, is like the Catholic Church, the CIA, or any large organisation - there are contradictory factions at work within it, and these factions play complex games of trying to manoeuvre the whole to support their cause.
Now when a trial has serious profound implications for the government, you can bet they'll do their best to put 'someone they can count on' in the driving seat, whether this support be motivated by corruption or simple ideology.
They may not always succeed - there are probably of course Judges of impeccable integrity, such as Garzon in Spain who might get into the hot-seat - but one would guess that they are probably able to succeed in putting in their man more often than not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | So which is it - evidence or not bothering with evidence? |
Read the damn thread.
If you are confused, do not assume it is because you are the more intelligent participant in the conversation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | That's OK, I shall not charge you for my hypothesis. |
My point is that you are charging me for it and I would like a return.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Anyway, to get back on course (as this thread is supposed to be about the existence or otherwise of Al-Qaeda)...
Belief in Al-Qaeda is an article of faith.
The only reason for most people to believe in its existence is that we are repeatedly told by the news media that it exists.
Yet the news media often repeat the lies issued by official bodies - re: initial reports on the Stockwell shooting, the death of Ian Tomlinson, the case of Harvie Brown, etc. - without ever having checked the veracity of official claims.
Now, isn't it strange that after September 11th 2001, we were told that Osama Bin Laden's shadowy Al-Qaeda organisation was to blame, and later given the story that this organisation was created in 1988. Yet just three years earlier, when Clinton needed to distract people from the Lewinsky case and bombed Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan (and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan), this "network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden" had no name, despite supposedly having existed for ten years already! (Presumably, if the Americans knew where to go and bomb their training camps, this 'network' had been on their radar for some time, yet they still didn't know what they were called?!)
Every week the western media reports on attacks in Iraq, Pakistan or elsewhere, and tells us these attacks are, "thought to have been carried out by Al-Qaeda" or, "carried out by Group X, who are believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda"
There is never any follow up to these reports to show whether or not these attacks really are carried out by an organisation known as Al-Qaeda, or a group linked to such an organisation, or if they were carried out by random, independent groups
But if we repeat the mantra "believed to be the work of Al-Qaeda" often enough, then people will (and do) believe it on faith.
It's like repeating, "All things bright and beautiful, the Lord God made them all," every Sunday, week after week, month after month, year after year!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I have discovered a new branch of philosophy.
It is based round a contradiction
"Man" is "social".
"Man" is also "individual".
Individual man gives his life personal meaning, by enthusiastically posting on websites. Thus individual man becomes social. Notice the dialectic. (Good eh)
As most people have something new to add. Mans natural state is "harmony".
Occasionally someone has nothing new, original or profound to say. Man being social will make allowances. But eventually disharmony will break out.
Despite the outbreak of disharmony, and despite the fact that everybody is now begging this individual to just post something a bit new, different, anything...the individual that is causing the problems' will continue to be thoroughly unoriginal, by presenting thoughts, that you could google in half a millisecond as "their own".
This is because they have an inner need to give their life meaning by becoming social.
Things will continue to deteriorate, as still happily unaware that the point of the site is to provide something new, this individual then highlights their lack of originality by the excessive use of bold and italics....
We now enter the state known as "collective hell".
I have called this new philosophy mexistentialism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
rotfl
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did OBL plan for the destruction of the Twin Towers?
Let us consider the following.
KSM prior to 9/11, has sworn allegiance to the Sheik (OBL)
KSM has identified the need for extra operatives that speak English and come from a western background. OBL insists on sending poorly trained Saudi muscle.
KSM tells OBL the operation is ready. OBL delays jeopardising the mission.
KSM requests that OBL does not alert western intelligence, once an attack is imminent. OBL makes announcements a "spectacular" is imminent.
There is no AQ plan in place following a "successful" attack. Indeed there is confusion about whether to claim responsibility.
A successful attack was likely to result in AQs Base being directly targeted attacked, and destroyed. AQ ideology prioritises the safety of the Base.
So did OBL really plan for the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11?
AQ creates terror whether an attack succeeds or fails. If the mission failed there would still be widespread terror.
OBL had a 'neat idea' which was not dependent on the destruction of the towers.
Let us suppose that KSM and Atta were both in contact with OBL and a secret service. It was the actions of this service that ensured the destruction of the towers.
This would explain the mysterious behaviour of Atta shortly before the attack.
It would also explain the confusion amongst AQ after the attack.
How else can we explain the actions of OBL?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| nemesis8 wrote: | | How else can we explain the actions of OBL? |
He's a megalomaniacal fool?
Heinlein's Razor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OBL is neither a mastermind or a fool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Megalomaniac does not equal mastermind.
As for not being foolish.... where's your evidence? Human beings tend to be stupid.
None of this is to say there's no truth in the points you made -- but the "secret service" ensuring the destruction of the towers was a non-sequitur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| nemesis8 wrote: | | OBL is neither a mastermind [n]or a fool. |
The correct verb is "was".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think we have to assume from negative evidence that OBL is dead. A masterstroke of course on his part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
