Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Menace13 on May 02, 2011, 03:59:14 am
-
Osama bin Laden is dead, Obama is about to give a speech about it!
-
It's true!
-
It's true!
Indeed.
It's a sad day for some al-Qaeda, hopefully there will be a reason to cease the conflict.
-
I'm going to put it down here for the record, that I don't really see this event actually affecting a whole hell of a lot in regards to the situations in either Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
What's your point?
-
I'm going to put it down here for the record, that I don't really see this event actually affecting a whole hell of a lot in regards to the situations in either Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's a little unfair, it changes bin-laden from a washed-up, possibly dead, beardy old terror-monger hiding in a cave into a full on martyr, and martyred by the americans too, i can see it pissing off a few of his mates and supporters to the point that threat levels will rise in all regions.
Hey, at least it's done something to improve obamma's standing with the drooling half-wits who see this as the only form of "justice".
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Wy8ek.jpg)
-
You are all being stupid and gullible, I mean, clearly the death of one man couldn't dominate world headlines with all the other important stuff going on in the world, right?
Clearly, this is just a cover-up to keep the media from reporting that we made alien contact last night.
-
I think you guys are missing the point...
Osama is DEAD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M)
-
Yes we can! Obama got Osama!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
-
Heard that Obama speech this morning on a radio talk show.
I liked it.
I hate how some people are saying Osama isn't dead and stuff like that.
Also crap about Obama. Racist crap pisses me off.
-
I hate how some people are saying Osama isn't dead and stuff like that.
Have you seen the body?
-
Who's Osama bin Laden? ???
-
he is obama's brother in law
-
Don't be an idiot.
War is stupid, it serves no purpose except to kill people and steal from people. Killing Osama is no better than him his organization killing the <2000 people that died on 9-11.
-K
-
apropos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLZWUwn_l2U
-
Damn, I bet the dude was amazing at Hide-and-Seek.
-
Damn, I bet the dude was amazing at Hide-and-Seek.
(http://blogs.ccs.northants.sch.uk/library/files/2011/01/wally.jpg)
-
I'm going to put it down here for the record, that I don't really see this event actually affecting a whole hell of a lot in regards to the situations in either Iraq and Afghanistan.
My thoughts exactly.
-
[img]
I was going along the lines of the topic, but that's cool too. :police:
-
Yeah, he's not really dead:
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden)
From the article : "WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says releasing photos of Osama bin Laden's body could pose a national security risk to the United States..."
-
CONSPIRACY UNVEILING
(http://stashbox.org/1110273/1304588758738.png)
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
-
If the terrorists hate for America for its freedom, like they claim, Osama is probably one of the most successful terrorists as his actions have made huge progress against freedoms.
-
If the terrorists hate for America for its freedom, like they claim, Osama is probably one of the most successful terrorists as his actions have made huge progress against freedoms.
You mean indirectly, as in being an excuse for our government to take away our rights one by one....right?
-
Osama has now been successfully martyred after successfully surviving ten years following the success of becoming the most famous terrorist in recent times for orchestrating an attack against the US that succeeded in causing panic and outrage across an entire nation.
The US has successfully killed a single man everyone hates after ten years of using him as an excuse for killing countless other people.
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
Yeah, he's not really dead:
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden)
From the article : "WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says releasing photos of Osama bin Laden's body could pose a national security risk to the United States..."
i lol'd
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
Ahahhahhahhah...
+turrets for you good sir
-
i lol'd
Ahahhahhahhah...
+turrets for you good sir
Same people who believed Iraq had the nuclear bomb.
Ps: I laughed too.
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
Thank you for providing us with your inside information.
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
Thank you for providing us with your inside information.
The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.
-
The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.
Are you saying your information is not first hand? Google can hardly be considered a valid source.
-
Bin Laden was dead in December 2001, the only reason they're saying it now is because the US gorvernment is using Al-Qaeda's troops for operations in near orient.
I know you wont believe me, so enjoy your lies, Amerifags.
Edit: Also, the reason they're saying he died in 2011 is because they've been using fake videos of him for 10 years.
cool story bro
-
The informations are inside your google bar. No probleme.
Are you saying your information is not first hand? Google can hardly be considered a valid source.
First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.
I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html
Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?
Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.
Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.
That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.
-
It's nice to see at least a hint of doubt there, even if you do assert the official story as definitely untrue.
The reality of the matter is we don't know for sure what happened, not least because details are still coming to light (and still others may never come to light). I can see how keeping his death a secret would allow the US to continue persuing him which in turn gives an excuse for all sorts of maneuvers. I just personally doubt such a secret could be contained so well and that either some American or al-Qaeda member wouldn't ruin the cover-up in some way. It's also not the nicest of lies to concoct, that you were unable to get him for TEN YEARS. Bogus conspiracy theories are usually evident by how they fail Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) when they propose that so many people (including the heads of American government, the members of al-Qaeda, Al Jazeera etc.) were all players in a massive game of make-believe.
I can see how the choice not to show pictures of him (despite showing pictures of those with him (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-compound#/?picture=374256178&index=6) [WARNING: Dead bodies and blood]) and to dump him quickly in the sea is sensible from a psychological game point of view. It's harder to rally a cause in reaction to an event without such shocking imagery from said event to back it (which, funnily enough, is the exact way in which the attack and subsequent collapse of the WTC was used).
In any case, I can't help feeling such speculation is misplaced when there are very real moral issues with the story as they tell it. For example the latest account (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/osama-bin-laden-killing) seems to be that osama was unarmed (possibly near to but not holding a weapon). Do you think if he could have been captured alive, he should have been? Who's decision was it to shoot him and for what reason?
-
First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.
I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html
Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?
Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.
Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.
That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.
Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.
-
First of my answer, google isn't the source, it's a search engine. You enter a few key words and websites will appear. Then, if you click on the link of a website and check it, you might find some articles. Read them.
I will give you my source, but it's in french : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Reflexions-sur-l-annonce-officielle-de-la-mort-d-Oussama-Ben-Laden-6457.html
Secondly, what is a valid source? How do you know if it's truely valid?
Thirdly, of course I doubt of my position, as anyone who is a bit rational, but the essential is behind the idea, I don't believe the official version. Don't forget that the Dalle Molle Institute, and many more experts, affirmed that the videos of Ben Laden the United-States governmnent presented were falsified. It's just one reason, which seriously isn't the main one, that makes me think Ben Laden died in 2001.
Read my source if you wish, but you will need more to make yourself a real idea, so don't be disapointed if you don't find what you fish from one article.
That's it, it's a short post, as intended, and if it push a few men of good will to do researches about the truth, then it's good. So, remember, I might be wrong, but atleast the official version is surely much further to truth than my version.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.
Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.
I don't agree with Garion's (p.s. I know who you are friend :P) viewpoint, but there are several flaws in your post I'd like to point out.
First, any educated person looks at all sources, regardless of where they come from or whom they are written by. From this point, they can then make their opinion. Selectively tuning out information because you don't agree with it doesn't bolster your argument. If anything, it weakens it.
Second, governments lie. There are many ostensible "reasons" why they do this, but it is a fact. (Look throughout history for examples).
Third, keep in mind Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and received training during the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps the U.S. government no longer saw the use in keeping a loose end (so to speak) alive. While I realize such a hypothesis is highly implausible, it is still as valid as your opinion. Such is the true nature of geopolitics; true public policy is made in the shadows as we have seen from Wikileaks' documents.
-
I don't agree with Garion's (p.s. I know who you are friend :P) viewpoint, but there are several flaws in your post I'd like to point out.
First, any educated person looks at all sources, regardless of where they come from or whom they are written by. From this point, they can then make their opinion. Selectively tuning out information because you don't agree with it doesn't bolster your argument. If anything, it weakens it.
It feels like you didn't understand what I wrote. You are right in the regard that you should always look at all sources, but that was not something I argued against.
Second, governments lie. There are many ostensible "reasons" why they do this, but it is a fact. (Look throughout history for examples).
Which is exactly what I said too.
Third, keep in mind Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and received training during the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps the U.S. government no longer saw the use in keeping a loose end (so to speak) alive. While I realize such a hypothesis is highly implausible, it is still as valid as your opinion. Such is the true nature of geopolitics; true public policy is made in the shadows as we have seen from Wikileaks' documents.
You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.
-
It feels like you didn't understand what I wrote. You are right in the regard that you should always look at all sources, but that was not something I argued against.
You didn't explicitly argue against examining all sources, however you implicitly tried to write Garion's sources off, and describe his argument as "trolling". I am a native speaker of English, so I understood what you had posted earlier.
Which is exactly what I said too.
Right, but you qualified that in this particular instance. You said the U.S. government would not lie about bin Laden because there is no "benefit". I attempted to explain to you that governments have a variety of reasons for lying; they need not merely lie for a "benefit".
You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.
By "challenging his beliefs", you are implicitly stating that he is wrong. You are making an argument/taking a side without explicitly saying so.
All of that aside, I am not particularly fond of arguing semantics. But I decided to humor you anyway.
-
You make interesting points but i don't know what they have to do with my post. I never took any side whether Garion was right or wrong, I just challenged his beliefs.
By "challenging his beliefs", you are implicitly stating that he is wrong. You are making an argument/taking a side without explicitly saying so.
All of that aside, I am not particularly fond of arguing semantics. But I decided to humor you anyway.
That "challenging his beliefs" is also called "skepticism". :P
-
The government benefits [from saying Osama is dead, regardless of verity] because it gives the War on Terror the appearance of having been fruitfull. The longer he appeared to be alive, the less efficatious foreign occupations would look to the public.
Now, more myopic people can slap each other on the back and go, "Gee, we really did nab us a terrorist. Let's go celebrate with a beer!"
(I live in a loft next to a bar, people were literally shouting stupid shit like that all night)
-
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. It's not our job to find sources backing your theories up.
I don't think for a second that the US government wouldn't lie about something if it was for their benefit. I'm wondering what they would gain lying about this, it took them 10 years to hunt their 'Most Wanted' man down. That doesn't exactly give you respect.
Secondly, assuming you really do believe Osama was killed back in 2001 and you do want people to know it, you are approaching this in the wrong way. In fact your unserious troll-like posts are more likely to make people distance themselves from your claims, and in extent making them more likely to write off theoretically true claims as crazy conspiracy theories.
First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.
Secondly, putting everything in text just to prove what I'm saying, or to give you reasons to follow my line of thoughts would be long and probably wouldn'T serve much, since we don't share the same vision of the world, so I'd have to explain everything. Which is why I'm telling you to check by yourself, because it IS a controversed subject.
Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.
It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.
-
Obama is a reptilian dong alien! Anyone with a brain will do the rest and seek the TRUTH themselves! Right, Garion?
-
Obama is a reptilian dong alien! Anyone with a brain will do the rest and seek the TRUTH themselves! Right, Garion?
I disagree, first it is because Obama isn't a reptilian dong alien, or atleast I have nothing that orients me there. Also, depending on what are your beliefs of what's going on in the world today, you might not see Ben Laden as everyone. Therefore, when the U.S. government declares he killed Ben Laden, and that every medias claim it's a win for the axis of peace, for someone like me it is different to believe. It's called a different conception of the world, I'm not gonna prove you Ben Laden was dead in december 2001 with a video and a comet falling in the background just so we can prove the date and everything... But if you care to interest yourself about the different stories concerning Ben Laden's real fate, then I can indicate you a little bit where you can develop an idea. I sent you my source, but it's just an article... You should read about the truthers, the birthers, the banks, the banks rivality, go see what Michel Collon says about and many more things. Watch this video if you can understand french : http://webrunner.kazeo.com/Propagande-neoconservatrice/Ben-Laden-11-septembre-Cheminade-denonce-les-montages-et-le-lavage-de-cerveau,a2218079.html
-
This thread is fairly ridiculous, but I thought, some of you might be interested in a news article from a credible source with some pretty important info like this one. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_al_qaida)
-
But mooseberry, he saw a video of a guy saying Osama died in 2001! US and Al-Qaeda are both involved in the grand conspiracy! The real truth is out there!
-
First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.
Oh yes it is. At least when you talk about highly controversial stuff and expect people to think more of you than just a troll.
Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.
It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest. You're using it as some sort of analogy but it doesn't relate in any apparent way. I suppose connecting unrelated things is a skill you have perfected.
-
First, it's not my job to back up everything I say on Tremulous.net, I just give up my version and if you have a brain, you can do the rest. The reason is because I'm not simply basing my idea on one source, there are many things approaching this question.
Oh yes it is. At least when you talk about highly controversial stuff and expect people to think more of you than just a troll.
Finally, I'm not approaching this the right way. I do not look like an angel, and if it's what keeps people away from me that's ok, because I don't care about it. Would you consider humor as serious? Then my ''troll-like'' post are serious. But as I said, if I could make one person doubt of the real version, I'm fine. It'll prove that this person isn't limiting himself to how a person appears, which is an essential quality to seek the truth, as symbols will fool you.
It's a sort of natural selection, and you failed it.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest. You're using it as some sort of analogy but it doesn't relate in any apparent way. I suppose connecting unrelated things is a skill you have perfected.
Natural selection means what it means, if you're not mentally fit enough, you wont pass the next step. Also, I'm not looking for ''people'' to believe me, I oriented you and that is all I will do. If you feel hurt by my decisions and would like to know more, there's google for you. So listen to me ddos clan, I'm not your mother, I won't take you by the hand to show you everything. Hell, if you're too stupid to do some researches and simply believe the different sources, which takes all of their informations from the same and only source, then that's fine with me. Initiated people might find some truth into what I said.
-
Initiated people
(http://dobrochan.ru/src/png/1102/inglip%5B1%5D.png)
-
Natural selection means what it means, if you're not mentally fit enough, you wont pass the next step. Also, I'm not looking for ''people'' to believe me, I oriented you and that is all I will do. If you feel hurt by my decisions and would like to know more, there's google for you. So listen to me ddos clan, I'm not your mother, I won't take you by the hand to show you everything. Hell, if you're too stupid to do some researches and simply believe the different sources, which takes all of their informations from the same and only source, then that's fine with me. Initiated people might find some truth into what I said.
Surely the chap with the superior intellect should be happy to explain what's going on in the world, especially if all of the relevant information is contained in a single video, in the hope of educating us, the poor uninformed sheep that we are.
-
Excuse me? Believing in conspiracy theories relates to natural selection exactly how? Does it decrease the chance of a premature death? Make you sexually more appealing to the opposite gender? Increase your offspring's ability to adapt to varying environments? Make you have more kids?
Oh dear are you a perfect reflection of a modern-day retard. "This guy in a video said it's true!" "All the news agencies are controlled by a single party!" "You need to be enlightened to see the truth!". So, Americans say they killed Osama, Al-Qaeda say they killed Osama. Do you now think both of them are controlled by the same group? Or does Al-Qaeda even exist? Wouldn't it be a little more logical that they actually killed the man?
I'm afraid this happens to be very equal to banging your head on a brick wall.
-
"This guy in a video said it's true!" "All the news agencies are controlled by a single [interest] party!" "You need to be enlightened to see the truth!".
Uh, well, the middle one is kinda true.
-
I'm not surprised at all that you missed the point of my post, obviously satirical as it was. The point is that burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want us to believe something, give us a reason to believe, rather than just saying "THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU SHEEP FREE". Because otherwise, it looks like you're talking out of your ass.
-
Check out this : http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/
-
Alex Jones = talking out of your ass.
-
Alex Jones = talking out of your ass.
It's ok, because it's Dr. Pieczenik who's talking and he's not the only one with these ideas.
-
Fair enough. I see your wingnut conspiracy theories and raise you this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13323060)
PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.
-
Fair enough. I see your wingnut conspiracy theories and raise you this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13323060)
PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.
A MD? And how is my theory wingnut? I already talked about the fake videos of Ben Laden, and some of the links I sent already answer this. Many institutes, such as the Dalle Molle Institute affirmed the videos were fake.
I also don't think you've checked everything.
-
PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.
Everything involves politics in some way or another.
-
PS: Your "Dr. Pieczenik" is an MD, which has nothing to do with politics. I see what you did there.
Everything involves politics in some way or another.
Ok, if he thinks he's only working in medicine he's wrong, he should check out his biography instead of talking out of his ass.
-
Heh, same article has him saying 9/11 was an inside job too.
-
Heh, same article has him saying 9/11 was an inside job too.
It does. See? Explaining you one thing wouldn't work. Just as I said.
-
Heh, same article has him saying 9/11 was an inside job too.
It does. See? Explaining you one thing wouldn't work. Just as I said.
Oh, you want to confess something about believing in another conspiracy?
-
Heh, same article has him saying 9/11 was an inside job too.
It does. See? Explaining you one thing wouldn't work. Just as I said.
Oh, you want to confess something about believing in another conspiracy?
I don't believe in the official version of 9/11, and if you care to know why, go check on google.
-
I don't believe in the official version of 9/11, and if you care to know why, go check on google.
I like this man's logic. I can say anything, and if someone asks for evidence, I can tell them to Google it. For instance, Garion is really a sentient piece of feces. Don't believe me? Google it.
(In case you're too dense, this is a restatement of the "Obama is a reptilian dong" post I made earlier, with the sarcasm made a bit more blatant.)
-
I don't believe in the official version of 9/11, and if you care to know why, go check on google.
I like this man's logic. I can say anything, and if someone asks for evidence, I can tell them to Google it. For instance, Garion is really a sentient piece of feces. Don't believe me? Google it.
(In case you're too dense, this is a restatement of the "Obama is a reptilian dong" post I made earlier, with the sarcasm made a bit more blatant.)
I gave you enough links to back up what I said, as for the rest, there is google to help you out. I don't even understand how people get these reactions to what I'm saying.
-
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Osama made horcruxes! =D
-
I don't believe in the official version of 9/11
Colloidal silver did 9/11.
-
I'm the only one staying serious and providing links, yet I'm the one who gets mocked the most. This is what I mean by natural selection, some people just can't debate seriously to improve their knowledge. It's your existance in nature that made you like that, so the nature somewhat determined your position in this debate. Now, you may either become serious and contribute or keep acting like sheeps, as you've all been rejecting what I've said without caring at all. Because, if you cared for real, you would have made researches, and you wouldn't reject every thing I've sent you.
Ps: When I'm saying ''all of you'', I mean everyone from the group of people who all acted the same way I described.
-
Heh, same article has him saying 9/11 was an inside job too.
It does. See? Explaining you one thing wouldn't work. Just as I said.
Oh, you want to confess something about believing in another conspiracy?
I don't believe in the official version of 9/11, and if you care to know why, go check on google.
I rest my case :D
Perhaps you should as an avid fan of google check "paranoia" :)
-
Perhaps you should as an avid fan of google check "paranoia" :)
You're arrogant and stupid, therefore I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. You're simplyfying everything to a level, then you ridiculize it*. For great justice, I don't ''google check'', I ''find valid sources on google which AREN'T google and check <<solid proof>>'', and I'm not telling you to google check what I say, as I am giving you links. I'm just saying, if you have personal questions that keeps you away from accepting my idea and that you're not telling me, the I won't convince you of anything, so go check google. Also, I'm saying that you should bother checking google before asking anything, as there are so many informations about it, and just with the links I've sent you, you should see what is my position on this question.
*Does this reminds you of a certain phrase?
-
I'm the only one staying serious and providing links, yet I'm the one who gets mocked the most.
You're the only one who's taking you seriously. And with good reason.
-
I'm the only one staying serious and providing links, yet I'm the one who gets mocked the most.
You're the only one who's taking you seriously. And with good reason.
Your case is proven.
-
I'm sorry Garion, I apologise. I realise now natural selection made me unable to debate seriously to improve my knowledge. It is my existence in nature that made me like this. Nature somewhat determined my position in this debate.
what the fuck
-
You're arrogant and stupid, therefore I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. You're simplyfying everything to a level, then you ridiculize it*. For great justice, I don't ''google check'', I ''find valid sources on google which AREN'T google and check <<solid proof>>'', and I'm not telling you to google check what I say, as I am giving you links. I'm just saying, if you have personal questions that keeps you away from accepting my idea and that you're not telling me, the I won't convince you of anything, so go check google. Also, I'm saying that you should bother checking google before asking anything, as there are so many informations about it, and just with the links I've sent you, you should see what is my position on this question.
*Does this reminds you of a certain phrase?
I did some deep investigation and I have to tell you what i found is beyond your wildest imagination. Garion is working for the Libyan Government trying to spread doubt about the U.S!
Source: http://ojeling.net/classified.txt
If you don't accept this source I'm afraid you are not mentally capable and natural selection will have it's way with you.
-
I'm sorry Garion, I apologise. I realise now natural selection made me unable to debate seriously to improve my knowledge. It is my existence in nature that made me like this. Nature somewhat determined my position in this debate.
what the fuck
Yes, it means some people are conditioned in such a way, that they won't be closed to everything. These people, they aren't you. These people, if they are like that, it's because during their lives, developed something called <<an open mind>> and intelligence, therefore they have autonomy and can argue about things instead of just rejecting them, without giving a reason*.
*And only one reason is poor, especially when I'm talking to a man defending himself like a nihilist and a teenager would.
-
You're arrogant and stupid, therefore I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. You're simplyfying everything to a level, then you ridiculize it*. For great justice, I don't ''google check'', I ''find valid sources on google which AREN'T google and check <<solid proof>>'', and I'm not telling you to google check what I say, as I am giving you links. I'm just saying, if you have personal questions that keeps you away from accepting my idea and that you're not telling me, the I won't convince you of anything, so go check google. Also, I'm saying that you should bother checking google before asking anything, as there are so many informations about it, and just with the links I've sent you, you should see what is my position on this question.
*Does this reminds you of a certain phrase?
I did some deep investigation and I have to tell you what i found is beyond your wildest imagination. Garion is working for the Libyan Government trying to spread doubt about the U.S!
Source: http://ojeling.net/classified.txt
If you don't accept this source I'm afraid you are not mentally capable and natural selection will have it's way with you.
I believed a perturbing tought similar to this could probably interfere with the conviction my sources would bring to you.
-
THE WEAK SHALL BE SLAUGHTERED WHEN DONGBAMA INVOKES THE NEW WORLD ORDER
-
As long as it's what you believe...
-
You're lucky the ability to detect sarcasm isn't a survival instinct.
-
The reality of the matter is we don't know for sure what happened, not least because details are still coming to light (and still others may never come to light). I can see how keeping his death a secret would allow the US to continue persuing him which in turn gives an excuse for all sorts of maneuvers. I just personally doubt such a secret could be contained so well and that either some American or al-Qaeda member wouldn't ruin the cover-up in some way. It's also not the nicest of lies to concoct, that you were unable to get him for TEN YEARS. Bogus conspiracy theories are usually evident by how they fail Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) when they propose that so many people (including the heads of American government, the members of al-Qaeda, Al Jazeera etc.) were all players in a massive game of make-believe.
This thread is fairly ridiculous, but I thought, some of you might be interested in a news article from a credible source with some pretty important info like this one. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_al_qaida)
I hereby present you some reasons that an open-minded, intelligent, autonomous, naturally selected avid googler fighting nihilists and teenagers worldwide chose to reject.
I did some deep investigation and I have to tell you what i found is beyond your wildest imagination. Garion is working for the Libyan Government trying to spread doubt about the U.S!
Source: http://ojeling.net/classified.txt
If you don't accept this source I'm afraid you are not mentally capable and natural selection will have it's way with you.
The truth unfolds!
-
You're lucky the ability to detect sarcasm isn't a survival instinct.
Don't be too hard on the poor boy, i hear morgellons can impair such abilities in sufferers, also bear in mind that, due to the prevalence of mind-control chips in fillings, garion can't visit the dentist, so with all that tooth pain _and_ the stress and physiological effects of such a serious disease, it's no wonder he has a little trouble getting his point across, poor garion :(
-
You're lucky the ability to detect sarcasm isn't a survival instinct.
Don't be too hard on the poor boy, i hear morgellons can impair such abilities in sufferers, also bear in mind that, due to the prevalence of mind-control chips in fillings, garion can't visit the dentist, so with all that tooth pain _and_ the stress and physiological effects of such a serious disease, it's no wonder he has a little trouble getting his point across, poor garion :(
And that's it for our discussion, Tremulant knew how to drag this down to the lowest level! You've discredited everything I said with your childness, and you did it without any effort. I can only tell you one thing, as talking with you is like talking to a deaf man: time might tell who was right.
-
And yet you choose to listen to the "childness" and ignore the others (Meis, Nux, etc), who are actually trying to have a rational debate with you. I'd say the trolls won this round.
-
And that's it for our discussion, Tremulant knew how to drag this down to the lowest level! You've discredited everything I said with your childness, and you did it without any effort. I can only tell you one thing, as talking with you is like talking to a deaf man: time might tell who was right.
I did at one point ask you to explain your point, you failed to acknowledge the post and just decided to link to random "sources", at every turn you've avoided giving any explanation, preferring to suggest that we look for the answers in our collective "google bars".
If you can't even begin to explain your point to those you consider less well informed than yourself, it suggests to me that you may not have a terribly solid grasp of just what that point might have been in the first place...
Anyway, apologies for having put so much time and effort into derailing this otherwise entirely serious thread and attempting, with unexpected success, to completely discredit you, Garion, it was child of me.
-
And yet you choose to listen to the "childness" and ignore the others (Meis, Nux, etc), who are actually trying to have a rational debate with you. I'd say the trolls won this round.
Meisseli didn't say anything to debate with me. I gave him a really good source and he discredited like it was nothing because it also talks about 9/11. He also had a terrible attitude. Anyway, I won't develop much more on his case.
I will answer Nux, because his intervention was one of the rare that made sense. Altho, if I didn't answer him, it's because the answers were basically in my sources*.
*so look there, because I'll base my answer on it. Partially, possibly.
Nux's answer:
''The reality of the matter is we don't know for sure what happened, not least because details are still coming to light (and still others may never come to light). I can see how keeping his death a secret would allow the US to continue persuing him which in turn gives an excuse for all sorts of maneuvers. I just personally doubt such a secret could be contained so well and that either some American or al-Qaeda member wouldn't ruin the cover-up in some way.''
You are right, we won't know for sure what happened, but there are documents that can be verified and credible person who can be interviewed. The source I gave ( http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/ ) shows a man who worked for the government (check out his biography too) revealing secrets of the government. He is saying at some point that the CIA had a document concerning the death of Osama Ben Laden, and that it was hidden. He also said that it could be proved, with simply a research on internet, that Ben Laden was sick and about to die even in 1999. He had the marfan syndrome, so he needed a machine next to him to stay alive. Which also explains why the closes people next to Ben Laden (the second leaders bellow him, and many high graded people in Al Qaeda were medics). Also, Ben Laden, after september 11, so the 12, the only plane that took flight in the United-States, was the one with BEN LADEN inside.
''It's also not the nicest of lies to concoct, that you were unable to get him for TEN YEARS. Bogus conspiracy theories are usually evident by how they fail Occam's razor when they propose that so many people (including the heads of American government, the members of al-Qaeda, Al Jazeera etc.) were all players in a massive game of make-believe.''
There are people who hold serious conspiracy theories and actually tell how some people can exploit the different systems in the world, such as the states, the medias, journals, etc... If you simplify every conspiration theories to a massive game where everyone is a complete traitor and a big vilain, then I think you have a wrong vision of these theories. This is why I propose people to read things by themselves, so they can develop a better idea than a black and white one.
''I can see how the choice not to show pictures of him (despite showing pictures of those with him [WARNING: Dead bodies and blood]) and to dump him quickly in the sea is sensible from a psychological game point of view. It's harder to rally a cause in reaction to an event without such shocking imagery from said event to back it (which, funnily enough, is the exact way in which the attack and subsequent collapse of the WTC was used).''
Indeed, the official theory isn't solid. Not showing a picture of the body for psychological reasons is okay if you're a mother, not when you do politics and you supposedly just killed the most searched man on the planet.
''In any case, I can't help feeling such speculation is misplaced when there are very real moral issues with the story as they tell it. For example the latest account seems to be that osama was unarmed (possibly near to but not holding a weapon). Do you think if he could have been captured alive, he should have been? Who's decision was it to shoot him and for what reason? ''
In my sources, they explained why declaring the death of Osama Ben Laden was a strategic decision. First, it is because Al Qaeda's troops are gonna have to be seen as allies of the united-states for the future military missions in orient and africa. Also, with the recent fall of popularity of Obama and his birth certificate affair, the death of Osama Ben Laden was a great accomplishment to Obama and would make him more loved and trusted. There's surely more...
Anyway, I'm keeping my answers short because it's not my role to tell you everything.
-
I did at one point ask you to explain your point, you failed to acknowledge the post and just decided to link to random "sources", at every turn you've avoided giving any explanation, preferring to suggest that we look for the answers in our collective "google bars".
If you can't even begin to explain your point to those you consider less well informed than yourself, it suggests to me that you may not have a terribly solid grasp of just what that point might have been in the first place...
Anyway, apologies for having put so much time and effort into derailing this otherwise entirely serious thread and attempting, with unexpected success, to completely discredit you, Garion, it was child of me.
A random source? No, it's absolutly not a random source. I avoided giving explaination because your collective google bar allows you to enter three key words and find all the links that talk about this HOT subject. I can't begin explaining to people who don't even care enough about what I have to say to read my links. It was your way of psychanalyzing me like a teenager who just learned a Freud theory would do... here's another good source for you: http://www.prisonplanet.com/inside-sources-bin-ladens-corpse-has-been-on-ice-for-nearly-a-decade.html
-
First infowars, now prisonplanet? How about an independent source that isn't dripping with propaganda?
-
First infowars, now prisonplanet? How about an independent source that isn't dripping with propaganda?
A source that'd claim Osama Bin Laden's death in 2001 would obviously call it propaganda when the government says he killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011. It seems logical.
-
-- CLASSIFIED: CONSPIRACY OF THE DAY --
GOOGLE GIVES PEOPLE DIFFERENT LINKS FIRST DEPENDING ON WHAT DID THEY SEARCH BEFORE.
OUR SPECIALISTS CALL IT THE "SURCH INGANE REVELANCE"
-- EOF --
-- CLASSIFIED: CONSPIRACY OF THE DAY --
THE CAKE IS A LIE, JUST GOOGLE IT
-- EOF --
-- CLASSIFIED: ADDENDUM --
A RADIANT SOURCE OF 650NM WAVELENGTH BUTTHURT HAS BEEN DETECTED AT 15641.60
NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION
-- EOF --
-
I did at one point ask you to explain your point, you failed to acknowledge the post and just decided to link to random "sources", at every turn you've avoided giving any explanation, preferring to suggest that we look for the answers in our collective "google bars".
If you can't even begin to explain your point to those you consider less well informed than yourself, it suggests to me that you may not have a terribly solid grasp of just what that point might have been in the first place...
Anyway, apologies for having put so much time and effort into derailing this otherwise entirely serious thread and attempting, with unexpected success, to completely discredit you, Garion, it was child of me.
A random source? No, it's absolutly not a random source. I avoided giving explaination because your collective google bar allows you to enter three key words and find all the links that talk about this HOT subject. I can't begin explaining to people who don't even care enough about what I have to say to read my links. It was your way of psychanalyzing me like a teenager who just learned a Freud theory would do... here's another good source for you: http://www.prisonplanet.com/inside-sources-bin-ladens-corpse-has-been-on-ice-for-nearly-a-decade.html
Yes, very random sources, can't you accept that we're likely to be both lazy and stupid, forcing us to read articles that come across as nothing but the ramblings of unknown nutjobs. If you care even remotely about getting us to understand the conspiracy you feel is at play here then it's up to you to explain why you do, not just link to entirely forgettable articles on weird and untrustworthy websites, you've obviously done a lot more research than anyone like me is going to be willing to carry out and you've actually come to the conclusion that these conspiracies are real, if i read the same sources as you i'm highly unlikely to interpret them the same way, so i really do need you to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, rather than links and recommendation of googling.
Don't expect us, the brainwashed masses, to swallow everything google turns up, we're obviously conditioned only to accept the views of mainstream news agencies(controlled by the jews, right?), unless you can understand and work within such limitations you're never going to reach anyone, and surely you do feel that your message is important enough to try?
-
Bin Laden had first diabetes, then lung disease, now Marfan Syndrome... it's nice how they keep changing it every now and then.
It's nice to see the idiocy and the weird, fallacious logic behind the fringe theorists' mind: obviously because Obama had low ratings, and the event boosted them, this must be a CONSPIRACY PLOT!!! Not showing a body of someone regarded very highly in the terrorist world must be because there is a CONSPIRACY PLOT!!! (or they might be afraid of the terrorists' reaction when they see their "holy leader" grotesquely murdered with his brain matter all around the floor, but I guess not)
This is why you cannot be taken seriously, do you really, _really_ believe your ramblings or those of your nice sources? Al-Qaeda is going to be used by the United States for future military missions in Orient and Africa? Bin-Laden was frozen in ice for ten years? :laugh:
-
Maybe this is just the latest form of viral marketing to promote the new musical, "bin Laden in ice".
-
Yes, very random sources, can't you accept that we're likely to be both lazy and stupid, forcing us to read articles that come across as nothing but the ramblings of unknown nutjobs. If you care even remotely about getting us to understand the conspiracy you feel is at play here then it's up to you to explain why you do, not just link to entirely forgettable articles on weird and untrustworthy websites, you've obviously done a lot more research than anyone like me is going to be willing to carry out and you've actually come to the conclusion that these conspiracies are real, if i read the same sources as you i'm highly unlikely to interpret them the same way, so i really do need you to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, rather than links and recommendation of googling.
Don't expect us, the brainwashed masses, to swallow everything google turns up, we're obviously conditioned only to accept the views of mainstream news agencies(controlled by the jews, right?), unless you can understand and work within such limitations you're never going to reach anyone, and surely you do feel that your message is important enough to try?
You are right, I forgot you were the one judging of what was a good source and what wasn't. I should just write a long text to explain all of you what I'm talking about, because clearly giving you an article with facts, interview and real names isn't a proof. Eventho you'd be asking me to put my source after my text, but in doesn't matter, right? If you doubt in my source, what can I do for you? No matter what theory I will come up with, it won't change anything.
Bin Laden had first diabetes, then lung disease, now Marfan Syndrome... it's nice how they keep changing it every now and then.
It's nice to see the idiocy and the weird, fallacious logic behind the fringe theorists' mind: obviously because Obama had low ratings, and the event boosted them, this must be a CONSPIRACY PLOT!!! Not showing a body of someone regarded very highly in the terrorist world must be because there is a CONSPIRACY PLOT!!! (or they might be afraid of the terrorists' reaction when they see their "holy leader" grotesquely murdered with his brain matter all around the floor, but I guess not)
This is why you cannot be taken seriously, do you really, _really_ believe your ramblings or those of your nice sources? Al-Qaeda is going to be used by the United States for future military missions in Orient and Africa? Bin-Laden was frozen in ice for ten years? :laugh:
You are right too Meisseli, but it's normal you guys are in the same clan. I mean, it just seems normal that the theory I'm showing you are wrong, since more theories existed! WOW! And yeah, the Fringe's experts wrote real books and one of them worked for the US government under 3 presidents and he worked with the most influent men of the work. How much do you think Fringe pay these guys to go out in real life and affirm things like they are doing? If your only argument to turn what I'm saying is ''Al Qaeda with the US? Bin Laden frozen? Wrong!'', then you must understand that we have a different paradigm, which is why I told you to go inform yourself.
If all you guys are gonna do is spit on my source for no reasons other than ''the government don't support them'' and mock me for that, without trying to inform yourselves because you are ''too lazy and too stupid'', then there is no point in arguing with you.
-
Osama has now been successfully martyred after successfully surviving ten years following the success of becoming the most famous terrorist in recent times for orchestrating an attack against the US that succeeded in causing panic and outrage across an entire nation.
The US has successfully killed a single man everyone hates after ten years of using him as an excuse for killing countless other people.
Words of wisdom indeed, I may have to quote you on that.
Everyone has stepped a toe over the line, everybody has done something wrong here.
What we are willing to fight for due to our ideologies, if only we could all be friends.
-
Osama has now been successfully martyred after successfully surviving ten years following the success of becoming the most famous terrorist in recent times for orchestrating an attack against the US that succeeded in causing panic and outrage across an entire nation.
The US has successfully killed a single man everyone hates after ten years of using him as an excuse for killing countless other people.
Words of wisdom indeed, I may have to quote you on that.
Everyone has stepped a toe over the line, everybody has done something wrong here.
What we are willing to fight for due to our ideologies, if only we could all be friends.
It's another probleme with more importance, I agree, but it's not a reason to let another lie exist. I did nothing wrong, I first wrote a small post to inform initiated people who could be close to my beliefs that there's a strong possibility the US gorvernment is lying about Bin Laden's death, and that he could actually have been killed 10 years ago. Aynone with a brain can enter ''Bin Laden death 2001'' and find all the hot infos about it, on the first page. Then, some feminized men started to ask me to put water in their vase. I told them that it wasn't how education worked, as education is a fire you start. I'm a man, therefore I teach like a man. I don't take my kids hands by hands and show them the world like a good mother would, because I know it's not how free people learn, as they need to be free, not held. So if you think I did something wrong, you should change your mind, because you don't know what I was trying to do. I said it before, some people won't make it to this theory if they stay closed and don't care enough to read on the points they disagree instead of just rejecting everything. I said it before they started rejecting what I gave them. Lastly, if we could all be friends, atleast one of us would have to be a liar, because I don't see how we could.
-
Thanks for your lengthy reply. I'll try to respond simply and clearly since I think some things haven't been communicated well.
Proof is a difficult thing, because the truly convincing stuff isn't always so easy to get to. It takes an expert to see enough evidence to support a claim and even then experts will disagree. So we end up having to trust the word of a person who we expect to have spent more time studying the subject than us. This is why I can fully understand how your 'proof' might look just as convincing as another person's 'proof' looks to me. I am assuming you are not an expert since I don't see you mentioning peer reviewed articles you've written but are merely citing articles that aren't your own.
So this is what it comes down to: it's not a matter of proof for people like us so much as it's a matter of judgement. To give you an idea of how I decide what to believe I'll try and break down my decision processes when faced with a claim.
1. Is it possible? [Requires: Imagination]
Start by assuming they're right and then try to explain things with it and explain it with things. If you can't imagine a world where it could be true, there's no way you can believe the claim.
e.g. I admitted I could see motivation for keeping his death a secret.
2. Is it likely? [Requires: Knowledge]
Draw on past experience to determine how often such a scenario occurs.
e.g. I've found that lies take more effort to keep going than the truth, personally. People will still lie when they feel it's safe to, but lies (especially big lies) are too risky more often than not.
3. Do you want it to be true? [Requires: Self Reflection/Restraint]
Consider the possibility that you're not being influenced by the search for truth. If you would love something to be true and hate it to be false, is it any wonder that you're more likely to believe the one that makes you happier? There are many things I believe that don't make me happy, but for me it would be worse to believe a lie.
It's this last one that I believe is the #1 cause for widely held false beliefs. Religions and conspiracy theories, for example, both give simple rules that govern large and complex systems. I can see the appeal of such beliefs when the alternatives have been too hard to understand, too boring, too scary and too upsetting.
I don't think you're a troll Garion, and you've made an effort to explain yourself which I appreciate. All I can say is I don't agree with your certainty about this. I think it's more likely you're choosing a convenient truth than it is likely you have considered it properly. There are many more boring large-scale conspiracies (such as price-fixing for example) out there with much less entertainment appeal which are accepted not because they are fun but because they have good evidence. There are secrets kept by the US government that have far better reason to be secret than a flimsy premise for continued war. Secret stealth helicopters for example, but then again I'm not sure if you consider that just another thread in the medias web of lies.
PS: I put a lot of effort into that post. Some might say too much. I hope it was worth it! :)
PPS: Here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Criticism) to wikipedia which gives some good criteria to meet in your claims.
-
I want to butt in here and just say:
Does it matter when he died? Has anything changed? Would anything change if he died 50 years ago or in 50 years?
For all I know he could have been a pizza delivery man and the government(any) doesn't want people to know this because they might suspect all pizza delivery people of being terrorists.
-
Wait are you saying google tells us what we want to hear?/me got mindfucked
(http://airodig.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ShitBrick.jpg)
-
''Proof is a difficult thing, because the truly convincing stuff isn't always so easy to get to. It takes an expert to see enough evidence to support a claim and even then experts will disagree. So we end up having to trust the word of a person who we expect to have spent more time studying the subject than us. This is why I can fully understand how your 'proof' might look just as convincing as another person's 'proof' looks to me. I am assuming you are not an expert since I don't see you mentioning peer reviewed articles you've written but are merely citing articles that aren't your own.''
I will have to agree with you that the truly convincing stuff isn't so easy to reach, as it requires you have completmentary informations. Such as, why would the United-States declare war after terrorism? Many people have said it was that they needed a new reason to keep expanding capitalism after the cold war. Altho, you don't have to trust me, as, as you've said, the articles I sent you aren't written by me. You must trust Pieczenik, is he who he pretends he is? Did he see the truth? Don't forget that he's not the only one to say such things, Pakistan Observer also reported the death of Osama, etc...
''So this is what it comes down to: it's not a matter of proof for people like us so much as it's a matter of judgement. To give you an idea of how I decide what to believe I'll try and break down my decision processes when faced with a claim.''
You are right, it is a matter of judgement, you either judge what is real or not, then you judge the coherance of it, etc...But when some people say they have facts, such as Pieczenik who might go in front of a judge to affirm what he did on my source, then it's not a simple question of ideology or jugement, but a question of proofs.
''1. Is it possible? [Requires: Imagination]
Start by assuming they're right and then try to explain things with it and explain it with things. If you can't imagine a world where it could be true, there's no way you can believe the claim.
e.g. I admitted I could see motivation for keeping his death a secret.''
Thus you are closer to my beliefs than does who don't see a motivation for keeping his death a secret. I'd like to point out that it's not a simple question of imagination, it's also of question of sense. If you have different informations that could make you doubt in the events that are going wrong in our worlds, such as the economical crysis, the wars, etc., then you might just find it logical that they hid Bin Laden, just by your understanding of what's going on. So it makes you lean more torward such theories*.
*Of course, this doesn't make it true for that simple reason.
''2. Is it likely? [Requires: Knowledge]
Draw on past experience to determine how often such a scenario occurs.
e.g. I've found that lies take more effort to keep going than the truth, personally. People will still lie when they feel it's safe to, but lies (especially big lies) are too risky more often than not.''
Bigger lies are said to work best, actually. If you wish to draw on past experience to determine how often such a scenario occurs, you must first ask yourself, what scenario is occuring right now? It's the medias that explains how the war against the axis of evil is going on. I don't know for you, but I've seen enough of these lies for the past years.
''3. Do you want it to be true? [Requires: Self Reflection/Restraint]
Consider the possibility that you're not being influenced by the search for truth. If you would love something to be true and hate it to be false, is it any wonder that you're more likely to believe the one that makes you happier? There are many things I believe that don't make me happy, but for me it would be worse to believe a lie.
It's this last one that I believe is the #1 cause for widely held false beliefs. Religions and conspiracy theories, for example, both give simple rules that govern large and complex systems. I can see the appeal of such beliefs when the alternatives have been too hard to understand, too boring, too scary and too upsetting.
I don't think you're a troll Garion, and you've made an effort to explain yourself which I appreciate. All I can say is I don't agree with your certainty about this. I think it's more likely you're choosing a convenient truth than it is likely you have considered it properly. There are many more boring large-scale conspiracies (such as price-fixing for example) out there with much less entertainment appeal which are accepted not because they are fun but because they have good evidence. There are secrets kept by the US government that have far better reason to be secret than a flimsy premise for continued war. Secret stealth helicopters for example, but then again I'm not sure if you consider that just another thread in the medias web of lies.''
I am not claiming I'm 100% right, but I am searching for truth. Yes, this theory makes sense with many things, but I am also basing myself on true experts and credible persons. In the end, we could say that we all chose the truth we believe in, because even when you see something, how do you know your interpretation is the true one? Doubt can be imposed to everything, it can make your fortune as it can make you fall. Don't forget that people who believes in conspiracies are usually place in the same lots as the reptilians of David Ickes, and yes, many persons made up many theories of conspiracy, but theories of conspiracy aren't some stories made up by random people and without validity, therefore they aren't to put on the same level. Continuing the war means they can own strategic military points in the region, therefore they can act there more easily. For exemple, it would allow the United-States to help Israel with troops, if they were attacked*.
*take the case of egypt which is starting to take a certain place in the Israelopalestinian conflict. And the alliance between the two palestinian factions, the Hamas and the Fatah. Things are moving, it's what I'm saying, and not only with these actors.
-
oh look, it's God, maker of the world reincarnate. :D
-
''PPS: Here's a link* to wikipedia which gives some good criteria to meet in your claims.''
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Criticism
As interesting as this link is, don't forget that these are simply applicable concepts. Therefore, they are applicable, except not to every theories. There are many hard proofs that shows the FBI lied, as the FBI ADMITED they lied: http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video.html , http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/25/no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-11 , and many mores....
Also, as I said in my last post, capitalism eventually leads to imperialism, Karl Marx has analyzed this, and the war against terrorism, the movements of democracy in the middle east and Israel's positions are all good reasons for Occidentals to take place in middle east. This way, they can control the situation with men, as they will set up bases and defend strategic points. The regions will be assured to them, giving them more ressources to exploit, so they can stay the strongest empire, and oppose the islamic banks, the China and the Russia. Anyway, this is just a quick analyse and it could be more nuanced, we could add elemets and structure, but you get a certain scheme of thoughts that can orient you in your search of truth.
@Janev: Google will provide you a bunch of links that will allow you to read and learn more about the keywords you put in the google bar. This way, if you have a brain, that you understand the rules of logic and can make the difference between true, seemingly true and false, you can eventually find a truth that is worth something in terms of being good, real and beautiful
@CreatureOfHell: It matters when Bin Laden is one of the important reasons to attack a country with the NATO. It also matters when and unloved president, and for reasons, become popular once more, simply because he supposedly killed the most searched man on the planet. And it matters when catching this man could change Obama's popularity to make him stay president for one more time or if this imperialistic politic, which he didn't start, would continue. So, such an event COULD have dramatic repercutions in the future, so it is a concrete phenomenon. But, it doesn't matter enough to stop talking and thinking about the other problemes that exists and are importants too. Anyway, more could be said, and I suggest you return on my source, because they also talked about why it matters. As you've said, it also has the effects to turn people away from other things.
-
You are right too Meisseli, but it's normal you guys are in the same clan. I mean, it just seems normal that the theory I'm showing you are wrong, since more theories existed! WOW! And yeah, the Fringe's experts wrote real books and one of them worked for the US government under 3 presidents and he worked with the most influent men of the work. How much do you think Fringe pay these guys to go out in real life and affirm things like they are doing? If your only argument to turn what I'm saying is ''Al Qaeda with the US? Bin Laden frozen? Wrong!'', then you must understand that we have a different paradigm, which is why I told you to go inform yourself.
If all you guys are gonna do is spit on my source for no reasons other than ''the government don't support them'' and mock me for that, without trying to inform yourselves because you are ''too lazy and too stupid'', then there is no point in arguing with you.
Saying that he had dear god what diseases shows that nobody really knew his health care that well, and those who like conspiracy theories pull stuff out of their ass.
Throughout the thread you've showed yourself as unintelligent, uninformed and very uncredible, and I see why the theorists got a grasp on you. First you confuse what natural selection means, now you seem to know "Fringe (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fringe)" is some kind of an organisation?
I believe we're spitting on your sources because they imply Bin Laden was frozen in ice for ten years, heaven's sake :laugh: I'm not surprised governments don't support voodoo or witchcraft, nor hilarious conspiracy theories.
I had hoped you would believe two institutes, which happen to be worst enemies of each other, saying a guy is dead. But you tend to always ignore this when you are asked of it. I guess believing in government plots, Marfan Syndromes, cryopreservation and so on beats both Al-Qaeda and US saying he died the 2nd of May.
I've had my share of laughs from this thread. Thanks for the giggles, we'll see you again when the New World Order has been established.
-
Saying that he had dear god what diseases shows that nobody really knew his health care that well, and those who like conspiracy theories pull stuff out of their ass.
Throughout the thread you've showed yourself as unintelligent, uninformed and very uncredible, and I see why the theorists got a grasp on you. First you confuse what natural selection means, now you seem to know "Fringe (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fringe)" is some kind of an organisation?
I believe we're spitting on your sources because they imply Bin Laden was frozen in ice for ten years, heaven's sake :laugh: I'm not surprised governments don't support voodoo or witchcraft, nor hilarious conspiracy theories.
I had hoped you would believe two institutes, which happen to be worst enemies of each other, saying a guy is dead. But you tend to always ignore this when you are asked of it. I guess believing in government plots, Marfan Syndromes, cryopreservation and so on beats both Al-Qaeda and US saying he died the 2nd of May.
I've had my share of laughs from this thread. Thanks for the giggles, we'll see you again when the New World Order has been established.
Then again, the great Meisseli makes a fool of himself. First of all, I know what the concept of natural selection is, now do you know what the words ''natural'' and ''selection'' mean? A theorist knew what they meant, so he formed a theory called ''natural selection'', but it doesn't mean the words ''natural selection'' always refer to this theory. Words are symbols refering to something, they have a structure and can/must be filled with sense. So, I said what I said, your life and the nature you've lived in, forged the ideas you have here today. Therefore, you've been conditioned to think the way you do, by your existance, and your existance depends of the environment (nature) you live in. Some people, like nux, were evolved differently and in different middle, because they've had to face different problems and acted a particular way to do so. Thus, he came by certain ideas and he adds more credibility to them because he has TRUE REASONS to do so.
Secondly, I said Fringe was a show, I know it is, and I even heard about it when the first episode could be viewed days before the show would pass on TV.
I said Al Qaeda and the United-States were much closer than you think, and you might even see it in the news within the next weeks or days. Other then that, in my sources there are people talking about the close relations of Al Qaeda and CIA. Also, a lot of informations is circulating about different situations of collaborations between them. The more I'm talking to you, the more I'm thinking you're the one trolling or you are simply being a useful idiot.
-
So far I've seen a lot of words from you Garion, but your actual points are buried too deep in bullshit to make any sense of them.
I will not use google to try to make sense of your claims and I will not waste my time trying to sift through the shit. Please give us the succinct version of your side of the story. A few sentences should suffice.
tl;dr Get to the point or Get the fuck out.
-
So far I've seen a lot of words from you Garion, but your actual points are buried too deep in bullshit to make any sense of them.
I will not use google to try to make sense of your claims and I will not waste my time trying to sift through the shit. Please give us the succinct version of your side of the story. A few sentences should suffice.
tl;dr Get to the point or Get the fuck out.
I got to the point already in my previous posts. I will not waste my time re-explaining everything to you. Please go read what I said once more, with attention, a few posts should suffice.
tl;dr Go read my old posts or get the fuck out.
-
I'd imagine he came to that conclusion after trying to wade through your old posts.
-
I'd imagine he came to that conclusion after trying to wade through your old posts.
I explained my reasons to believe into it with just a few sentences, then I said if you wanted to see where I took this stuff, check out my sources. And, if you had anything else you were wondering, you should check on google first then try to talk with me about it. I
-
I'd imagine he came to that conclusion after trying to wade through your old posts.
^Yes
@Garion
GTTP or GTFO
-
I basically said that Osama Bin Laden was found dead and his family announced it in 2001. Dr. Pieczenik, a member of the CFR and a man who work for presidents of the United-states and secretary of states, affirmed that the CIA had a document(s) concerning Osama Ben Laden's death. He also said that there were fake videos made by FBI and CIA of Osama Bin Laden's messages, some CIA officials also admited it, and experts in analyses also affirmed the videos were fake. Osama had the marfan's syndrom. Pieczenik, who is also a physician, affirmed that the CIA physicians knew Bin Laden had the marfan syndrome, after they treated him to see what he had. But, seriously, I basically said it to Nux, and everything or almost was in the sources. They could say, even in 1999 that we wasn't gonna live a long life, as he looked really bade. People with the marfan's syndrome have a short lenght of life, it's a pulmonary probleme. He also needed a machine with him if he wanted to survive longer.
-
I said Al Qaeda and the United-States were much closer than you think, and you might even see it in the news within the next weeks or days. Other then that, in my sources there are people talking about the close relations of Al Qaeda and CIA. Also, a lot of informations is circulating about different situations of collaborations between them. The more I'm talking to you, the more I'm thinking you're the one trolling or you are simply being a useful idiot.
Oh yes, now Al-Qaeda and the United States are butt buddies. Maybe you'd at least now like to provide some considerable, concrete evidence before claiming black is white or Sun is revolving around Earth.
And my latest post was supposed to be my grand exit cue from this great thread, oh well.
-
I basically said that Osama Bin Laden was found dead and his family announced it in 2001. Dr. Pieczenik, a member of the CFR and a man who work for presidents of the United-states and secretary of states, affirmed that the CIA had a document(s) concerning Osama Ben Laden's death. He also said that there were fake videos made by FBI and CIA of Osama Bin Laden's messages, some CIA officials also admited it, and experts in analyses also affirmed the videos were fake. Osama had the marfan's syndrom. Pieczenik, who is also a physician, affirmed that the CIA physicians knew Bin Laden had the marfan syndrome, after they treated him to see what he had. But, seriously, I basically said it to Nux, and everything or almost was in the sources. They could say, even in 1999 that we wasn't gonna live a long life, as he looked really bade. People with the marfan's syndrome have a short lenght of life, it's a pulmonary probleme. He also needed a machine with him if he wanted to survive longer.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
I have reservations:
- You rely largely on the word of one man, this Dr. Pieczenik. Have these alleged documents been published or are we just taking the good doctors word on it?
- It's in the interests of Osama's family to take the heat off his back.
- Whether the Osama videos were real or fake doesn't prove anything either way, I just confirms (if they were faked by the CIA) that the CIA are a bunch of douchebags.
-
I said Al Qaeda and the United-States were much closer than you think, and you might even see it in the news within the next weeks or days. Other then that, in my sources there are people talking about the close relations of Al Qaeda and CIA. Also, a lot of informations is circulating about different situations of collaborations between them. The more I'm talking to you, the more I'm thinking you're the one trolling or you are simply being a useful idiot.
Oh yes, now Al-Qaeda and the United States are butt buddies. Maybe you'd at least now like to provide some considerable, concrete evidence before claiming black is white or Sun is revolving around Earth.
And my latest post was supposed to be my grand exit cue from this great thread, oh well.
Read the first two paragraphs of this article : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
I basically said that Osama Bin Laden was found dead and his family announced it in 2001. Dr. Pieczenik, a member of the CFR and a man who work for presidents of the United-states and secretary of states, affirmed that the CIA had a document(s) concerning Osama Ben Laden's death. He also said that there were fake videos made by FBI and CIA of Osama Bin Laden's messages, some CIA officials also admited it, and experts in analyses also affirmed the videos were fake. Osama had the marfan's syndrom. Pieczenik, who is also a physician, affirmed that the CIA physicians knew Bin Laden had the marfan syndrome, after they treated him to see what he had. But, seriously, I basically said it to Nux, and everything or almost was in the sources. They could say, even in 1999 that we wasn't gonna live a long life, as he looked really bade. People with the marfan's syndrome have a short lenght of life, it's a pulmonary probleme. He also needed a machine with him if he wanted to survive longer.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
I have reservations:
- You rely largely on the word of one man, this Dr. Pieczenik. Have these alleged documents been published or are we just taking the good doctors word on it?
- It's in the interests of Osama's family to take the heat off his back.
- Whether the Osama videos were real or fake doesn't prove anything either way, I just confirms (if they were faked by the CIA) that the CIA are a bunch of douchebags.
There are Chossudovsky and Brzezinski who talks about the CIA's lies on Al Qaeda and/or Ben Laden. It's in the interest of the politics that is going on to take the heat off the elites. Osama Bin Laden's fake videos proves something vague, and orients to some extent.
-
Is English your first language?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but I'm starting to think you are speaking as coherently as you're thinking. Sorry, but I think we've entertained your ideas for long enough. It's nothing personal, I just don't think you're good at justifying your beliefs so either you should stop trying or you should start trying.
ADDENDUM: Yes, the government does it's best to deceive. I believe there are good arguments to make and you sadly end up taking them too far.
-
The 9500 word plus document you linked to on globalresearch.ca (which is an anti-war highly biased source) by Michel_Chossudovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky) interviewing Zbigniew_Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) has nothing to do with when Osama Bin Laden died. It's a piece about the link between US intelligence and Islamic factions during the cold war. These links were known and widely acknowledged but have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Stop trying to confuse the issues with walls of text and give us something concrete.
-
To dispel any doubt that there may still be in the air here, there shall be no conclusion to your discourse. Evidence is something to be interpreted, and two people will interpret the same evidence in completely different ways. You are debating beliefs, and I think that there is very little intellectual growth or change to come from this, as it is obvious that everyone is comfortable in their opinions, and no one is open to being led from them. If debate is not for growth, then what is it for? Concrete or not, no one will consider any evidence from the opposition, because (again) "concrete" is a matter of opinion, hence the disagreement.
Just something to chew on. This is a dick waving contest.
-
Is English your first language?
Providing links to French videos? Spelling Bin Laden the French way? Using many words the way French people would?
I would guess it isn't.
-
The majority of this thread is absurd. From Garion's unsubstantiated claims to Meisseli's attacks on Garion's character, rather than his claims, and all in between.
Frankly, everyone who contributed to this mess should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Fine, I'm obviously not going to convince anyone here. I explained how Osama Bin Laden was dead in 2001, I even gave you sources from credible persons. Now, if you don't believe they speak the truth, you won't believe Osama's death. What else am I supposed to do, if the story and the testimony I present you aren't convincing you enough?
@Janev, In the first paragraph of this 9500 words plus document I sent you, it was written ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.'', and that is just a start, because after he starts talking about the transition between cold war to war on terrorism. To me, that's pretty related to what I said earlier.
@Plague Bringer, When there are secret facts and secret documents hidden by the government, proving the things I'm sending you about Osama Bin Laden'death, and that some of the people who were in presence these documents are telling you these documents truely exist, you either believe them or you don't. It's not a question of showing who has the biggest or a simple question of taste. There's a truth, and there are facts, testimony, texts, videos and much more that are testifying it.
-
To dispel any doubt that there may still be in the air here, there shall be no conclusion to your discourse. Evidence is something to be interpreted, and two people will interpret the same evidence in completely different ways. [1] You are debating beliefs, and I think that there is very little intellectual growth or change to come from this, as it is obvious that everyone is comfortable in their opinions, and no one is open to being led from them. If debate is not for growth, then what is it for? Concrete or not, no one will consider any evidence from the opposition, because (again) "concrete" is a matter of opinion, hence the disagreement.
[2] Just something to chew on. This is a dick waving contest.
1) I'm actually open to persuasion but in this case I was just trolling and trying to get garion to formulate clear arguments.
2) Nice choice of words... No chewing on my dick though even if I win this dick waving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-54wAE7nJI) contest
The majority of this thread is absurd. From Garion's unsubstantiated claims to Meisseli's attacks on Garion's character, rather than his claims, and all in between.
Frankly, everyone who contributed to this mess should be ashamed of themselves.
And here you are being all superior and shit ;)
-
@Teapot: I was trolling before, and by now, even I've given up on this thread.
-
The majority of this thread is absurd. From Garion's unsubstantiated claims to Meisseli's attacks on Garion's character, rather than his claims, and all in between.
Frankly, everyone who contributed to this mess should be ashamed of themselves.
You didn't understood the point of my ''unsubtantiated claims'' then. And I said it, I was just giving the info about Osama Bin Laden's real death because it has became a real hot topic since the fake announcement of his death. Therefore, it is really easy to find all the informations concerning Osama Bin Laden's true death on google, if you know what key words to enter.
-
And here you are being all superior and shit ;)
My only contribution to this thread has been to call it absurd. By not saying anything that deals with Garion's claims, I'm as bad as you guys.
-
And here you are being all superior and shit ;)
My only contribution to this thread has been to call it absurd. By not saying anything that deals with Garion's claims, I'm as bad as you guys.
Welcome to the dark side brother
...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
-
I'd like to say that when my source says they kept Bin Laden on ice, it might be an expression to say that they kept him ''alive'' to the public so they could use him as a menace or a victim.
Also, I find it quite funny that some people reveals they were never serious, because it confirms what I was saying about you guys being lazy and unserious.
-
Au contraire, sir, it confirms that you're taking yourself waaaaay too seriously.
-
To be fair to the rest of us you never did present a convincing case and this is a semi-anonymous forum. Chillax dude it's not srs biznes. Just because you bleat the loudest doesn't make you right.
You are right about one thing though, I am lazy and unserious.
-
Is English your first language?
Providing links to French videos? Spelling Bin Laden the French way? Using many words the way French people would?
I would guess it isn't.
Which was my guess too, but I wanted him to confirm it since it was the reason I was forgiving the ways in which his sentence structure/meaning failed rather than just spelling.
There are Chossudovsky and Brzezinski who talks about the CIA's lies on Al Qaeda and/or Ben Laden. It's in the interest of the politics that is going on to take the heat off the elites. Osama Bin Laden's fake videos proves something vague, and orients to some extent.
You misunderstand. This (or the statements this article itself misinterprets) isn't saying al-Qaeda is imaginary. This is refering to the involvement of the CIA in aid to Afghanistan so as to oppose the soviet union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan). It is alleged that this aid was instrumental, or at least somehow was influencing, in the creation of al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden). For better (well documented) examples of 'blowback' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29) and other negative involvement of US involvement in other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism) I suggest you browse through the links of the related wikipedia articles under 'References' which are cited throughout. I am not suggesting that everything on wikipedia is undeniably true- though I do believe it has a good record -just that if you strive to be unbiased, you might want to read these sources too.
-
You misunderstand. This (or the statements this article itself misinterprets) isn't saying al-Qaeda is imaginary. This is refering to the involvement of the CIA in aid to Afghanistan so as to oppose the soviet union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan). It is alleged that this aid was instrumental, or at least somehow was influencing, in the creation of al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden). For better (well documented) examples of 'blowback' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29) and other negative involvement of US involvement in other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism) I suggest you browse through the links of the related wikipedia articles under 'References' which are cited throughout. I am not suggesting that everything on wikipedia is undeniably true- though I do believe it has a good record -just that if you strive to be unbiased, you might want to read these sources too.
First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.
Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''
-
For those who don't see the ultimate truth:
This topic, and its subject, Osama bin Laden, is one biggest troll ever created and such.
And those who want still to reply in here, grinding more bin Laden bullshit, are USA government officials.
Good day.
PS: i'm f****n tired of this.
-
For those who don't see the ultimate truth:
This topic, and its subject, Osama bin Laden, is one biggest troll ever created and such.
And those who want still to reply in here, grinding more bin Laden bullshit, are USA government officials.
Good day.
PS: i'm f****n tired of this.
They might be government officials, they're just asking me to put in more proofs anyway, so they fail. Also, if you're tired of this shit, stop coming. As long as someone wishes to have an intelligent discussion, I am willing to keep talking.
-
Also, if you're tired of this shit, stop coming.
Words of wisdom.
-
First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.
Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''
That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.
I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.
-
They might be government officials,
I KNEW IT. Tremulous is full of G-men. I bet Stannum is some sort of elite black-ops guy.
-
That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.
We could say I'm trying moderatly because I repeat myself a lot and basically read the articles for most of you. I'd also like to point that what I quoted was from this article's introduction: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.
According to what I sent you (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718), the U.S had interest in keeping the war against an enemy after the cold war ended. I will quote some texts of the article that gives good reasons to the government to chose the path of war:
1. the economic reasons, we could also investigate that the bandits organisation and beneficial and possibly work with or for the gorvernment, therefore it's a double reason :
''Researcher Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand." (Ibid)
"CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. … (Ibid)
Afghanistan is a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on China’s Western frontier and on the former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea, it is also strategic for its opium production, which today, according to UN sources, supplies more than 90 % of the World’s heroin market, representing multi-billion dollar revenues for business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)''
-----------------------
''The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia. ''
-----------------------
These are some reasons, but if you go back to the article and read the paragraphs ''war in Chenya'' to atleast ''Yougoslavia'', you will see that it allows Washington to act inside the different countries of this world. It's really strategic for the United-States to take place in the world, by the exterior with their military or whatever, and by the interior with their agents, party, movements, etc. Anyway, there's a lot more to say on the subject, and I don't know everything, but I think with the article I gave you, if you read it, it should be a good start to discover more about this.
-
First, it's you who misunderstand me, I said Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, I didn't say it was imaginary. The text isn't simply refering to the cold war, it is refering to the reasons why CIA would create Al Qaeda, why is war on terrorism good for america, it talks about 9/11 and much more. Just in the introduction, it gets to the point I was trying to prove : ''Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".
The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.
Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State. ''
That was a much better explanation with a good command of English. Though you did mostly repeat yourself with each paragraph, I can understand that you're trying hard to make your point clearer so I'm glad for your effort.
I do believe that the ethical grounds on which the US government (and my British government too) have used to justify the ongoing conflicts in the middle east are poorly constructed at worst and patronizing at best. I don't believe the US needs to create enemies when it's so good at earning them already.
The parts in bold are plagiarized. He is not making an effort to be coherent he is trolling by throwing out copy-pasted gibberish which has nothing to do with the death of Osama Bin Laden.
-
The parts in bold are plagiarized. He is not making an effort to be coherent he is trolling by throwing out copy-pasted gibberish which has nothing to do with the death of Osama Bin Laden.
I said they were in the introduction before quoting them, and I reaffirmed, in one or two posts after, that it was from the introduction of this article : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
I told Meisseli to read the first two paragraph of it (therefore it counts the introduction) because it proved what I wanted to prove him. But, Nux then asked me a similar question as Meisseli concerning Al Qaeda or something, so I sent him the info directly, thinking he knew what article I was talking about.
-
Best not to assume and instead make it clear you're quoting in the future. Everything I've said so far has not been based on the links you provided but what you have said yourself.
I'll read through the article you've provided.
-
Best not to assume and instead make it clear you're quoting in the future. Everything I've said so far has not been based on the links you provided but what you have said yourself.
I'll read through the article you've provided.
We were talking about the article, so it seems logical that you knew what I was talking about... Plus I mentioned that it was in the introduction...
-
I don't doubt that you thought I read it, and you find what you've said to be clear. To me you weren't clear.
I've read it now (although I skimmed through some of the history that I either knew about or found didn't add to the point he was making).
The 9500 word plus document you linked to on globalresearch.ca (which is an anti-war highly biased source) by Michel_Chossudovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky) interviewing Zbigniew_Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) has nothing to do with when Osama Bin Laden died. It's a piece about the link between US intelligence and Islamic factions during the cold war. These links were known and widely acknowledged but have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
I can confirm that this document says nothing about the early death of Osama Bin Laden. I don't quite agree that it only refers to links between US intelligence and Islamic factions during the cold war, it also refers to alleged ongoing involvement in several areas and makes wild claims on top of it. The article, in summary, gives many examples of the US funding radical minority groups to destabilise key areas. This part seems fair enough and is a case well made by many people.
It also mentions that when afghanistan was dirupted, it's drug trade increased dramtically and then suggests that this is because the CIA want it that way because they're profiting from the drug money (rather than because afghanistan's ability to stop the drug trade is, you know, disrupted). It interprets every case as a perfectly executed part of a master plan to not only destabilise the enemy but to also cause attacks on America to scare the US public. That last part is where I start to disagree. I don't think the US needs to create it's own enemies, I don't think they would actively encourage threats to thier own safety and I don't think they're able to execute a plan so flawlessly. I believe that the plan to destabilise enemy territory by funding extremist groups is unethical enough as it is and I find the idea that the strategy 'blewback' in thier face to be more plausible.
I'm not saying that the US isn't using attacks against it as a sad excuse to do terrible things. I'm not even saying that US officials would never entertain the idea of attacking it's own citizens as a way of promoting agression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods). I just think plans fail at the best of times and that to directly/indirectly encourage a minority faction of extremists to knock down your own largest building as a way of scaring your populous enough to gain support to invade the wrong nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) is unreliable, highly costly and slightly nonsensical as a perfected plan. It doesn't seem so far-fetched to believe that America disrupts a foreign country and members of that country get angry and decide to disrupt America back with a simple and effective act of violence.
-
I gave this document to prove that Bin Laden isn't the one we think he is, nor is the CIA, and to prove the relation between Al Qaeda and the CIA. I disagree with you that, after the cold war, America had a good enemy for their project of extending their power (economic, control...). The Chinese weren't strong enough back then, nor the russian (obviously), nor Brasil...I don't see anyone after the cold war who could be america's new enemy and one that would benefit the US, for some reasons. Also, I wouldn't be ready to say the US government encouraged minorities to crash in their building, there are a lot of people talking about an interior job, by israel or the CIA, and they say that bombs were planted in the WTC, they also provide more proofs, such as physics analysis, video analysis, facts concerning the people working there*, who made the investigation and how the investigation was made, etc... which makes the real version of 9/11 quite strange, to say the least. Anyway, these subjects might be related, depending on how you see everything, but I think we're stretching a bit on different plans now.
*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...
-
*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...
Feel free to link to that reputable source.
-
Good job wikipedia...
(http://i.imgur.com/itx5k.png)
-
I gave this document to prove that Bin Laden isn't the one we think he is, nor is the CIA, and to prove the relation between Al Qaeda and the CIA. I disagree with you that, after the cold war, America had a good enemy for their project of extending their power (economic, control...). The Chinese weren't strong enough back then, nor the russian (obviously), nor Brasil...I don't see anyone after the cold war who could be america's new enemy and one that would benefit the US, for some reasons.
Can't think of enemies? Iraq was already on the agenda, picking up where the presidency of Bush the Elder left off. This is why the US ended up attacking Iraq anyway. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks but that didn't stop them using it as a poor excuse to deal with unfinished business. WMDs in the hands of foreign nations were very much still the 'Big Bad' before the WTC was hit. The agenda was focused on bolstering missile defense and sanctioning offending nations before some notably successful terrorists terrified the world.
Also, I wouldn't be ready to say the US government encouraged minorities to crash in their building, there are a lot of people talking about an interior job, by israel or the CIA, and they say that bombs were planted in the WTC, they also provide more proofs, such as physics analysis, video analysis, facts concerning the people working there*, who made the investigation and how the investigation was made, etc... which makes the real version of 9/11 quite strange, to say the least. Anyway, these subjects might be related, depending on how you see everything, but I think we're stretching a bit on different plans now.
And why is it so unbelievable that a plane crashing into each of two skyscrapers is ENOUGH. Why woud they risk being caught installing bombs when even if the towers didn't fall, I would imagine they would have been extremely unsafe possibly making them a blight on the city which would have caused a great amount of disruption as it is! How can you say that such an unprecedented building collapse would definitely have happened one way or the other? I doubt even the terrorists knew what would happen, they just knew that it would probably be bad for the people inside those buildings.
-
*I was reading somewhere that the most important people working there were called to be told that they shouldn't show up on 9/11...
Feel free to link to that reputable source.
A little research on the subject wouldn't harm you. Try searching for ''the truthers'', you might find interesting things.
@Nux:
''Can't think of enemies? Iraq was already on the agenda, picking up where the presidency of Bush the Elder left off. This is why the US ended up attacking Iraq anyway. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks but that didn't stop them using it as a poor excuse to deal with unfinished business. WMDs in the hands of foreign nations were very much still the 'Big Bad' before the WTC was hit. The agenda was focused on bolstering missile defense and sanctioning offending nations before some notably successful terrorists terrified the world.''
I'm talking about a real enemy, like the URSS, the germans and the french as they once were. A strong empire or nation that could truely overcome the United-States (so it implies this empire or nation wants to act against the US), wether it's by military power, economically, scientifically or anything that would give them the edge. This wasn't the case of Iraq, nor of any other group at that time.
The terrorist alert gave a concrete reason to put money in war, to attack the other countries, to lower the rights of civilians, etc...Since then, the extreme riches kept gaining money and the balance of ressources in our country kept lowering. Thus, we can see how these war aren't benefiting the poorer people of our countries. This mean we can also say that bolstering missile defense ans sactioning offending nation wasn't the only thing in the agenda. Anyway, I'm just pointing that one out, but it might not fit you.
''And why is it so unbelievable that a plane crashing into each of two skyscrapers is ENOUGH. Why woud they risk being caught installing bombs when even if the towers didn't fall, I would imagine they would have been extremely unsafe possibly making them a blight on the city which would have caused a great amount of disruption as it is! How can you say that such an unprecedented building collapse would definitely have happened one way or the other? I doubt even the terrorists knew what would happen, they just knew that it would probably be bad for the people inside those buildings.''
Same as for Tremulant...There are enough documentary on the subject. And, with everything I told you, you should be able to guess why I think they'd risk intalling bombs...I suggest you visit this webpage : http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 it's a quick top 40 of why you should believe in 911, it should be a good start to understand the general idea people have developped on the question. It's not complete, but it takes a good look at what has been investigated. You will have to find the many and free documentaries or articles on internet if you wish to develop more your knowledge.
-
I have no intention of getting involved in this thread but I will point out some links that people can use to educate themselves on why at least some of the many conspiracies are ridiculous given a little thought.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
-
I'm talking about a real enemy...
Why is it that when I give you an example of an external threat, it's not 'real' enough? I will grant you that the threat of Nukes and other WMDs was becoming an old hat at the time, but the threat of 'terrorism' has been around for much longer. So what you're actually saying is that the US had enemies already but they weren't good enough and decided to fly planes into itself as if it didn't have enough trouble as it was.
I have no intention of getting involved in this thread but I will point out some links that people can use to educate themselves on why at least some of the many conspiracies are ridiculous given a little thought.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Only just started watching the second screw loose change video and already it's making blind assertions in the complete other direction. It's saying that Operation Northwoods never involved any plan to hurt anyone, which isn't true. Operation Northwoods was a collection of proposals all aimed at giving the impression of a credible threat through a false-flag operation. Some of those proposals did indeed suggest harming US civilians.
The plan was considered but rejected. It's important to understand that the only reason it would be considered is if there was support for it by some officials and that it's thanks to those who opposed it (such as JFK) that it didn't get put into action.
-
It's been a long time since I watched Screw Loose Change and I don't remember much of it. I just provided it in the hope that it would be useful. But I do recall that it made some good points (even if it is amongst a lot of rubbish).
-
Why is it that when I give you an example of an external threat, it's not 'real' enough? I will grant you that the threat of Nukes and other WMDs was becoming an old hat at the time, but the threat of 'terrorism' has been around for much longer. So what you're actually saying is that the US had enemies already but they weren't good enough and decided to fly planes into itself as if it didn't have enough trouble as it was.
How was Iraq an external threat to the United-States? They had a nuke? No. They were up with the terrorists? No, this is, as I said, the war on terrorism phenomenon. Iraq is and was, to the United-States, an actor that interfers with U.S. external politcs, had ressources the united-states wanted, and other things that doesn't make Iraq a true opponent to U.S. hegemony. Iraq was more a good prey...And I said the US governments created war on terrorism as they had no more real enemies to make war with... An enemy as the USSR was seen...The blowback theory is also related to the war on terrorism. I don't think the US government crashed planes into the WTC, but I think there was something done by the interior that wasn't right, to the least. And, the more you study the case, the more you'll see how the 9/11's mysterious. Anyway, I think we should either get back to our old subject or stop this discussion, because you misunderstand me a lot, which is understandable, and this causes me to develop newer ideas forever, and I can't even finish explaining one that I have to explain two others...
-
You've just heard someone say a scummy politician has done something scummy and/or shady! What will you do?
GOOD IDEA: Examine many sources and compare them with each other, even from the dreaded and poorly defined "main stream media" that is absolutely loathed and reviled. Reach your own conclusions through your own research. Employ the scientific method. Use skepticism even on your own cherished sources. Don't label the other side as incompetent. Don't assume you are right. Begin with the least convoluted explanation for things, not some massive conspiracy. Give the most concise summaries possible of your viewpoints and debate with the other side directly instead of attacking their method of debating or labeling them as stupid. Go for the points, provide your counter-points and provide ample evidence. Pull your head out of your ass.
BAD IDEA: Post links to fringe sources that anyone besides yourself would find ridiculous. Tell people to Google it, because it's clearly so painfully obvious. Claim that you're the only one who knows anything about the subject in question and that the other side is blind. Make sure to use the word "sheeple" a lot. They're all wrong, only you are right, because you have seen the truth. Don't you ever change your opinion. You possess the hidden truth and the world must know about this through rambling, incoherent forum posts. The more you type, the more "right" you are. Ask for "just one piece of evidence" because everything can obviously be disproved by a single article.
P.S.: Y'all are posting in a troll thread. Garion is either very persistent or very deluded. Find something more productive to do with your life. Play Tremulous, or go outside. That wonderful feeling of convincing the other side that they're wrong? It's not going to come.
-
Ok guys, enough is enough. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and I want to clear some things up right now:
When Iraq seceded from the OPEC confederates in the Great Shinto War of '89, it was clear that they were planning to arm themselves with Warhammers of Much Diffidence and so a grand scheme was concocted. The great war machine that was the Unified States of the Americas gathered together every last covert and secret agenty service (including Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell) and created Black Ops Thinktank Service(BOTS). BOTS decided that in order to defeat the Muslim horde and their terrifying diffidence, they must first bring racism back into the world. So the snuck off into the night and found a down-on-his-luck mulatto actor from Kansas City (his name was Rick Johnson, if I recall correctly) and told him to start growing a beard.
From that point, it was a simple matter of bioengineering a highly unstable compound called SARS in an attempt to give people super mutant powers like Professor X, but unfortunately the Midget Conglomerates of Asia sent ninja spy assassins to steal the SARS before it could be completed and tested it prematurely on circus monkeys which some unfortunate guy named Ling Sun accidentally mistook for his wife and before you knew it half of Asia was creating the perfect smokescreen for the super secret society (BOTS) to perform corporate espianoge on the Russians and steal their plans for the feared and deadly "Plane Bomb." At around that time good ol' Rick Johnson's beard was in full bloom, so nefarious agents of the CommonWealth of Cheyenne Mountain sent him on a one-way all expenses paid vacation to Afganistan.
While there Rick decided to pick up acting again, and with some funding from shady characters, he was able to release his first ever workout video (with a turbanny military theme). After his film was met with some success at the Sundance movie festival in Littleshire, Britain, Rick decided that it was time he got a real screen name. Thus Osama bin Laden was born. From there he spent most of his time dying his beard grey and taking pilot lessons for a Top Gun spinoff he was planning to produce. At this point the super secret and ultra shady BOTS organization knew it was time to strike. They once again sallied forth into the night and found some disgruntled ex-Walmart overnight employees who still had their boxcutters, and organized them into a fearsome batallion of sky warriors. This battalion (known only as SKYBAT1) stormed into area 51 and absconded with the newly developed and super lethal soviet Plane Bomb.
From there, you can pretty much guess the rest. Whatever the case, it's clear that poor old Rick Johnson bin Laden was really just a stooge for the American government.
PS: Garion, I found that source (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Bin_Laden) you were quoting from/looking for.
-
The internet agents have arrived. I'm not going to spoon feed you, and I don't give a shit if you don't trust me. I gave enough informations and I won't write the whole story since the down of time just to prove you my point. All you two do is caricature my point, so fuck you.
-
Is that a touch of despair I detect in your voice? Chrissake son, I've only been in this thread a little over 2 hours... get your shit together.
-
Is that a touch of despair I detect in your voice? Chrissake son, I've only been in this thread a little over 2 hours... get your shit together.
I don't recall talking out loud. As you said, I got my shit together, since I pointed you an Kharnov in my last post and told you to fuck off.
-
The internet agents have arrived.
As in a top secret group of CIA operatives who've infiltrated the trem community just to discredit your story? I've always been a little unsure of kharnov's true motivations, this would explain a lot.
Is that a touch of despair I detect in your voice? Chrissake son, I've only been in this thread a little over 2 hours... get your shit together.
I don't recall talking out loud.
Shit, you mean you've been whispering the whole time? You could've mentioned it sooner, i've been typing at full volume, no wonder the agents have descended on this thread, very sorry. :(
As you said, I got my shit together, since I pointed you an Kharnov in my last post and told you to fuck off.
That's very together, good job. So many conspiracy theorists, when attempting to explain these complex plots to laymen, come across as stereotypically ragey nutjobs who'd knife the guy in the corner shop if the internet told them to, thank god you've managed to avoid this.
-
i am top secret goverment agent and i am here to tell u all that galion is right, there is much conspiricies and they go al the way to the top!!!!!!!!!!
-
How was Iraq an external threat to the United-States? They had a nuke? No. They were up with the terrorists? No, this is, as I said, the war on terrorism phenomenon.
Were the allegations of them harbouring WMDs? Yes. Did they Look for WMDs? Yes. Did they find any? No. Did they still insist there were WMDs and used it as justification to invade Iraq? Yes.
Remember, we're not discussing whether Iraq actually was a credible threat. You said the US had no alternative boogeymen and yet there they were suggesting Iraq was dangerous before terrorism became the next big thing. Also I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point since we both agree that the US government has severely exaggerated threats to push it's own goals.
I don't think the US government crashed planes into the WTC, but I think there was something done by the interior that wasn't right, to the least. And, the more you study the case, the more you'll see how the 9/11's mysterious.
So you actually have a more relaxed position than your previous posts suggested. That at least is reassuring. How sure are you about Bin Laden dying early?
P.S.: Y'all are posting in a troll thread. Garion is either very persistent or very deluded. Find something more productive to do with your life. Play Tremulous, or go outside. That wonderful feeling of convincing the other side that they're wrong? It's not going to come.
I don't personally debate because I expect a big payoff at the end. I enjoy discussion for what it is; a sharing of ideas and a challenge to your own views as much as anyone elses.
-
P.S.: Y'all are posting in a troll thread. Garion is either very persistent or very deluded. Find something more productive to do with your life. Play Tremulous, or go outside. That wonderful feeling of convincing the other side that they're wrong? It's not going to come.
>implying that playing Tremulous is productive
-
How sure are you about Bin Laden dying early?
Obviously Garion was one of the one secret agent that assassinated Osama.
Conspiracy theorists are so silly.
-K
-
Your replies are so sad to read...Not only do you misunderstand me, but many of you also act like a bunch of tools and with arrogance.
@Tremulant: ''As in a top secret group of CIA operatives who've infiltrated the trem community just to discredit your story?'' -Tremulant
No, they act as the little internet agents of good taste, who can tell what is right or wrong, morally or factually. I'll skip the rest of your post, it was pointless.
@Nux: ''Were the allegations of them harbouring WMDs? Yes. Did they Look for WMDs? Yes. Did they find any? No. Did they still insist there were WMDs and used it as justification to invade Iraq? Yes.
Remember, we're not discussing whether Iraq actually was a credible threat. You said the US had no alternative boogeymen and yet there they were suggesting Iraq was dangerous before terrorism became the next big thing. Also I'm not sure why we're even arguing this point since we both agree that the US government has severely exaggerated threats to push it's own goals.'' -Nux
We agree they severly pushed threats to pursue their own goals, I also think they created some of these threats. Discussing wether Iraq was a credible threat against the America like how the USSR was once seen is just silly. Anyway.
''So you actually have a more relaxed position than your previous posts suggested. That at least is reassuring. How sure are you about Bin Laden dying early?''
If Steve Pieczenik goes to the jury to say what he said on the radio, I will be more convinced. Then again, he's not the only reason that gives this thesis credit. Remember, posts don't suggest things, you do. When I was talking about how some people would be better conditionned to discuss with me, it is because these people don't think conspiracies theories are all crazy, and it is also because they don't think we're always talking about a conspiration when there is something wrong going in this world. Other things exsists, such as strategies of dominations, strategies to acquire power, etc.
The modern man isn't <<racist>>, he's <<ideologist>>.
@Kasofat: ''Obviously Garion was one of the one secret agent that assassinated Osama.
Conspiracy theorists are so silly.''
Yes, conspiracy theories are silly, let's remove conspiracy from the dictionary I say. Again, conspiracies exist, and as I said to Nux, there are things that may be amalgamed with conspiracies, such as strategies of dominations, etc...But we could argue there's a bit of conspiracy in these too.
-
Have you guys tried this pizza dough recipe?
4 1/2 cups (20.25 ounces) unbleached high-gluten, bread, or all-purpose flour, chilled
1 3/4 (.44 ounce) teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon (.11 ounce) instant yeast
1/4 cup (2 ounces) olive oil (optional)
1 3/4 cups (14 ounces) water, ice cold (40°F)
Semolina flour OR cornmeal for dusting
It's fucking awesome! Check out the rest of the instructions here (http://www.101cookbooks.com/archives/001199.html). RTFM for some awesome pizza.
-
Discussing wether Iraq was a credible threat against the America like how the USSR was once seen is just silly. Anyway.
Remember, we're not discussing whether Iraq actually was a credible threat.
In case you read that and just didn't understand it, I'm not saying Iraq was a threat. I'm saying the US was saying Iraq was a threat.
They are now saying terrorists are the threat, which in a sense is true because the government realised what people are capable of doing if the state doesn't impose itself on them enough. Adding security at airports was a rational response to evidence that hijackers were too capable of causing damage. Also reasonable is taking it as a lesson about the capabilities of a minority of extremists with creativity. Pretty much everything else that has been done in the name of the war on terrorism has been a farce.
When I was talking about how some people would be better conditionned to discuss with me, it is because these people don't think conspiracies theories are all crazy, and it is also because they don't think we're always talking about a conspiration when there is something wrong going in this world.
I hope I've made it clear that I don't just decide a story is bogus before considering it. Moreso, I know for a fact conspiracies exist because "a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29) It doesn't take much to make a conspiracy. It does, however, take quite a lot to create a global conspiracy that even your loosely assorted enemy supports.
-
Garion was right, Osama died in December 2001. Read my source from Fox News on the first page!
-
Ryanw surely watches fox news, because he thinks like them. Reducing the informations about Osama's death in 2001 to fox news is just an error an informed person wouldn't make.
-
See? You've wasted so much time on this thread that at this point, even you're just trolling.
-
See? You've wasted so much time on this thread that at this point, even you're just trolling.
I'm not trolling, I'm answering trolls. Can't avoid getting in contact with you.
-
(http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/obl_dead_or_alive.jpg)
-
See? You've wasted so much time on this thread that at this point, even you're just trolling.
I'm not trolling, I'm answering trolls. Can't avoid getting in contact with you.
OFF: Feeding is trolling. Go invade /b/, why dontcha?
ON: Easily the best news story title I've seen.
-
Alright kid, I will play your little game too :
OFF: You're an idiot.
On: You're NOT an idiot.
-
Alright kid, I will play your little game too :
OFF: You're an idiot.
On: You're NOT an idiot.
I rest my case.
-
Alright kid, I will play your little game too :
OFF: You're an idiot.
On: You're NOT an idiot.
I really did give you the benefit of the doubt, didn't I? Off/on referred to off/on topic, though I suppose both of my comments were equally on topic. Thank you for your timely and well mannered response. Please come again.
-
Alright kid, I will play your little game too :
OFF: You're an idiot.
On: You're NOT an idiot.
I really did give you the benefit of the doubt, didn't I? Off/on referred to off/on topic, though I suppose both of my comments were equally on topic. Thank you for your timely and well mannered response. Please come again.
I really did give you the benefit of the doubt, didn't I? Off/on refered to trolling Off/on. I'm not feeding a troll, I'm posting a response so people know what my position is on his behaviour, wether he's serious or not. For exemple, I am answering you, as, just like Pazuzu, you troll because you don't believe in most of what I said. Please, don't come again. Tell me to fuck off if you want, atleast you'd be a bit honest for once, but leave the bone.
-
Wrong. We "troll" you because you're obviously a troll yourself, and a stupid post deserves a stupid response.
-
''Wrong. We "troll" you because you're obviously a troll yourself'' What else did you see in your crystal ball?
''and a stupid post deserves a stupid response.'' I completly agree!
-
Nux, I told you on Tremulous that I would find a link to prove you that one of Obama's important man didn't sign to agree with his delcaration, here it is: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-robert-gates-60-minutes-20110515,0,639300.story
But I think my original one was from a french source. I'd like to point out, that even if he signs or doesn't, it doesn't mean he's right, nor that I am.
-
I really did give you the benefit of the doubt, didn't I? Off/on refered to trolling Off/on. I'm not feeding a troll, I'm posting a response so people know what my position is on his behaviour, wether he's serious or not. For exemple, I am answering you, as, just like Pazuzu, you troll because you don't believe in most of what I said. Please, don't come again. Tell me to fuck off if you want, atleast you'd be a bit honest for once, but leave the bone.
Garion, please. You assume that because I called you out on pathetically unimportant semantics that I don't agree with you, or see any validity what-so-ever in any of the statements you've made. I will tell you to fuck off, because, in agreement with you or not, you're an overly defensive asshole. You have no place in any debate because opposition is so blindly ignored, and more than that, you have this horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach that anyone who speaks ill of your disagrees with you, and anyone who agrees with you doesn't speak ill of you. I don't care how old you are; you are a pathetically self absorbed child who cannot face some of the world's realities. Sometimes you're wrong. Sometimes, admit it. Sometimes, I'll agree with you and still think you're an asshole. There isn't an ounce of respect that you deserve from this place or its people. None for your poor arguing skills, and none for your immature attitude.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
(http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0021/AA/EC/AAECA6BE0A4E9304AA53F3_Large.jpg)
-
Nux, I told you on Tremulous that I would find a link to prove you that one of Obama's important man didn't sign to agree with his delcaration, here it is: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-robert-gates-60-minutes-20110515,0,639300.story
What does the link prove and how does it relate to your assertion that osama's been dead since 2001?
Had to lol a little at the "In Case You Missed It..." box's top story...
-
It's simply related to one argument I was developping with Nux in game, get over it Tremulant...
-
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Because it had to be said.
-
It's simply related to one argument I was developping with Nux in game, get over it Tremulant...
Get over what? Send him a bloody private message if you don't want to discuss it with the rest of us...
-
This thread isn't even lulzy anymore, and that's saying something. If being right on the Internet means that much to you, Garion, and if you're really not a troll (if), then confine your stupidity to the PMs, like Tremulant said. I was expecting a lock pages ago, and I still am.
-
''This thread isn't even lulzy anymore, and that's saying something. If being right on the Internet means that much to you, Garion''
How am I supposed to communicate with this? Haha!
''and if you're really not a troll (if)''
Look who's talking. Ps: people must stop seeing trolls everywhere, it's getting annoying. When I read you, it seems like whenever someone says something that makes a reaction he's automatically a troll. Stop being such a girl please.
''then confine your stupidity to the PMs, like Tremulant said.''
You're an idiot, I write to Nux here so we can keep the discussion here and if someone who shows a true interest comes, then he can see where we're at. Now don't be surprised if I don't care about answering you or Tremulant, your attitude proved me it wasn't worth it. Engaging a conversation with you two would be anti-productive. If you think I am saying stupid things, then go confine yourself elsewhere. In the end, you will surely exagerate my thoughts here and start saying more bullshit.
''I was expecting a lock pages ago, and I still am.''
With all the stupidity I could read in this thread, I too was expecting this. You've been working hard to get this thread locked.
-
''then confine your stupidity to the PMs, like Tremulant said.''
You're an idiot, I write to Nux here so we can keep the discussion here and if someone who shows a true interest comes, then he can see where we're at. Now don't be surprised if I don't care about answering you or Tremulant, your attitude proved me it wasn't worth it. Engaging a conversation with you two would be anti-productive. If you think I am saying stupid things, then go confine yourself elsewhere. In the end, you will surely exagerate my thoughts here and start saying more bullshit.
I must say, you've absolutely nailed the art of quotation.
Garion, please, stop being such an obnoxious and troll-like individual, why do you feel that explaining the relevancy of that random link would be a waste of time, if you're posting publicly for a reason then surely you want to make life easier for your audience, whether that's me or some other reader who you feel is more worthwhile?
If you really don't want people to expect you to explain your postings, don't post them publicly, private messages work nicely.
-
Garion, trolls are not called trolls for no reason. People are called trolls around here when they express one of two things, either extreme stupidity/naivety/bigotry or... Well, alright, I suppose that's about it. You've demonstrated that you have no interest in learning anything or bettering your own understanding of the situation. Your only interest here is in defending your point, insulting those who oppose you, and attempting to convince people that you are right. While those are (with the exception of the second) desirable qualities in a debater, your lack of interest in allowing people to change your mind makes anything you have to offer here null.
You're a troll, Garion, because you came here to argue a point using shady sources and poor logic. You're a troll because you have no interest in growing as a thinker. You're a troll because your mind is closed. You're a troll because you thought that just because I called you an asshole I didn't agree with what you said. You're a troll because you feed trolls. You're a troll because you're too serious. You're a troll, troll, troll. Go back to your bridge (but not before you respond to me).
(http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/minecraft_bridge2.jpg)
-
It's obvious you want attention, so here you go, have one last dose of sweet, sweet attention:
-Stop pretending you're not a troll. A troll is someone who posts for attention, and you've abandoned any pretense of having any other reason for posting long ago.
-If you weren't a troll, and if you were truly in this thread for the argument, you would be fine with continuing your highly intellectual discussion over private messages. The fact that you want to keep such a banal thread public shows that you want as much attention as you can get.
-Not everyone who tries to get a reaction is a troll, but all trolls try to get a reaction.
-Several people who "shows a true interest comes" already. You quickly drove them all away with your links to long, rambling articles from people of questionable authority.
-If you want to engage in a "productive" discussion without us mundane plebians ruining it, don't go to a forum.
I've decided that if you're going to continue begging for attention, the best thing I, or anyone here, can do, is to ignore you. This is my last post in this thread. Like I said, have fun trying to be right on the Internet.
EDIT: While I was writing this, Plague Bringer elaborated on why you're the only troll here, so even though you probably have already, read his post again. It bears repeating.
-
-If you weren't a troll, and if you were truly in this thread for the argument, you would be fine with continuing your highly intellectual discussion over private message
How can he speak to someone over private messages if no one wants to listen?
You're a troll because you feed trolls.
We're all trolls now.
-
You're a troll because you feed trolls.
We're all trolls now.
Keep that on the DL. It's discrediting. ;)
-
It's a shame that the thread came to this- and stayed on this for so long with so little progress to show for it -when there's so much more interesting things to discuss.
The fact that there's anti-american sentiment in the Middle East, for example, why that is, and how America's recent actions affect the situation.
-
I am impressed by how much fail you can fit in a single thread
-
It's a shame that the thread came to this- and stayed on this for so long with so little progress to show for it -when there's so much more interesting things to discuss.
The fact that there's anti-american sentiment in the Middle East, for example, why that is, and how America's recent actions affect the situation.
America's recent action (supposedly killing Bin Laden) affect the situation in Pakistan. In fact, there are many things that come from the americans and that have been affecting the situation for a while now. There've been many persons talking about how the movements of democracy in middle east were being corrupted to take a direction that would please the United-States. Thierry Meyssan talks a lot about this, but he speaks in french.
-
Democracy is out of vogue, anyone who is anyone has trended toward socialism. Just goes to show how far behind the times the Middle East is in progressing, well, anything. For example they still arm themselves with AK-47s (1950's anyone?!), yodel at daybreak and between meals, and cut off young street urchins' hands over stealing lunch.
Attempts by Middle Eastern countries to move forward are just laughable, much like that one retarded kid you went to school with, who hung out with the cool crowd and was to dumb to realize they only tolerated him because they pitied him.
PS: @Garion: French is for pussies, I must therefore infer that Thierry Meyssan is a pussy, and not a credible source. Which would mean his opinions on anything should be promptly ignored, and/or disagreed with.
-
I'd like to answer every troll, for the last time : you're all too white to speak of this world and in this topic.
-
Welcome to the dark side brother
...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
http://youtu.be/lYZEHmOWSQ8
in all seriousness, it does not matter if bin ladin is dead or alive. there is always going to be one boogyman or another kept around to keep you distracted from the real problems.
what those real problems are is up for debate. i only know it's not some terrorist group we trained in the 80's. i'm a veteran. i served my time protecting the free world from communism in korea, but i've lost many a friend, see too many men i knew come up maimed or unable to function in society. and for what? freedom? security? oil? we're fighting wars on so many fronts i cant even keep track of them all, and we're going farther and farther in debt, and more and more of our children, our siblings, our parents are fighting and dying in a foreign land, and though this all, i'm supposed to be celebratory and jubilant that one man was killed without trial and his body irretrievably disposed of?
pardon me if i'm somewhat less than enthusiastic that "we got him". it doesent matter a hill of beans. at best a figurehead was eliminated, at worst a martyr was made. what's guaranteed is that the war will grind on, sucking our economy and population dry.
mission a-fuckin'-complished.
-
I dont believe anything the government, media, and individuals claim. Our government is controlled by a group of super rich dudes. For some reason these people like to wage war. Obama, bush are just sock puppets. Think about it...the people vote for who ever is presented in the media, they do no research at all
-
I dont believe anything the government, media, and individuals claim.
Wow, so you don't actually believe anyone at all. I trust your life as an insane bearded hermit living under the bridge is going well.
-
I dont believe anything the government, media, and individuals claim.
Wow, so you don't actually believe anyone at all. I trust your life as an insane bearded hermit living under the bridge is going well.
Hey DDoS, were you always so stupid or did you make your way there? There's so much assumptions in your posts (not only this one), that I'll answer you this way:
>implying anyone at all is either the government, the media and the individuals.
>implying that because you don't BELIEVE in what the media vehiculate and that you don't BELIEVE in what the individual claim you are a hermit to the best and a caveman to the worse.
I'm not sure if it's the conventional logic that's getting hurt by your text or if it's simply dignity* that's getting hurt by all your intellectual** submission.
*The pure concept itself, in all it's dignity.
**Even if I'm attributing you intellect, it doesn't mean you have a lot.
PS: Once again, a ddos clown takes a post that made sense (snake's post) and destroys it by mixing up ddos legendary stupidity to it.
-
I dont believe anything the government, media, and individuals claim.
Wow, so you don't actually believe anyone at all. I trust your life as an insane bearded hermit living under the bridge is going well.
Hey DDoS, were you always so stupid or did you make your way there? There's so much assumptions in your posts (not only this one), that I'll answer you this way:
>implying anyone at all is either the government, the media and the individuals.
>implying that because you don't BELIEVE in what the media vehiculate and that you don't BELIEVE in what the individual claim you are a hermit to the best and a caveman to the worse.
I'm not sure if it's the conventional logic that's getting hurt by your text or if it's simply dignity* that's getting hurt by all your intellectual** submission.
*The pure concept itself, in all it's dignity.
**Even if I'm attributing you intellect, it doesn't mean you have a lot.
PS: Once again, a ddos clown takes a post that made sense (snake's post) and destroys it by mixing up ddos legendary stupidity to it.
Hi Iabz
-
Hi Tremulant, you should just shut up and leave this thread if it's only to salute me. I know you'd love to defend your friend, but you will have to do more (sadly) than just showing up. But I'm not blaming you, who could defend correctly what Meisseli said? Unless it is in between fools*, I don't see how.
*Fools like ddos.
-
Well he could always insult you on sight. That's always a winner. Case in point, there is a word for people like you Garion. It's MeatSpin.
-
Well, I was more into chuckling how exaggerated seven7snake's post was, but that works too Garion. Don't get overly emotional about it though.
-
Well, I was more into chuckling how exaggerated seven7snake's post was, but that works too Garion. Don't get overly emotional about it though.
I see that ''chuckling'' about people's post is the main thing you've done on this thread, with the help of your little friends. There's nothing emotional here, I'm just serving you the soup you're serving others.
Well he could always insult you on sight.
That's your claim. As for mine, I just answered him with the same level of intelligence as he did with Se7enSnakes, it wasn't on sight nor personnal*.
*If anything, it's related to his answer, as I said, and to his way of contributing (hyperbole) to the thread, which is the sort of attitude I am against.
That's always a winner.
Not always, for exemple, when I'm serving what the others are serving, I get some people like ''Janev'' who mock me to show their disagreement with my method.
Case in point, there is a word for people like you Garion. It's MeatSpin.
Coming from a guy called Jane with a v and who has a dildo in his signature, I'll pass.
-
We seem to be spinning right round but not getting anywhere. :D
-
chmod +x /bin/laden
-
I dont believe anything the government, media, and individuals claim.
Wow, so you don't actually believe anyone at all. I trust your life as an insane bearded hermit living under the bridge is going well.
signature-worthy
-
such an emotional conversation
-
Osama Bin Laden is alive!
-
Hi Tremulant, you should just shut up and leave this thread if it's only to salute me. I know you'd love to defend your friend, but you will have to do more (sadly) than just showing up. But I'm not blaming you, who could defend correctly what Meisseli said? Unless it is in between fools*, I don't see how.
*Fools like ddos.
troll :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
-
I'm not a troll, it's simply Obama who's more charming than I am.
-
I'm not a troll, it's simply Obama who's more charming than I am.
and you didnt have zbigneu brazinzki putting you through college.
-
I know this is a dead post but I will like to have my final word. The media, that is television news, is controlled. The scare tactics that the media is using is for a specific reason and not for your freedom. The fact is that a small group of bankers control the media, the control the politicians, they control the voting process by using television, and by voting fraud. This conspiracy started about 3 centuries ago with a scheme called fractional reserve banking. Fractional Reserve Banking is the process where the banks loans money created out of nothing loan it out.Once they owned so much money they infiltrated politics and hired the best legal minds to pass laws that benefitted them at the expense of everyone else. Osama Bin Laden may or may not be dead. He may have died years earlier. I dont believe this death is all that important but I believe this news of OBL death serves some other purpose.
-
Not sure if serious but I'll bite. Fractional Reserve Banking is nothing like what you described. People deposit lots of money into banks which then sits there doing nothing. To make some money banks then take a fraction of that deposit and invest it somewhere. They might invest it in stocks, bonds, lend it out in the form of home loans, etc, etc. What they're not doing is making money out of nothing.
I get the last word now :D
-
Of course they do, not only do they steal money in ever way possible and imaginable, but when you ask for a loan, they will simply write the amount leaned and that'll be it. And if they are the types of banks who don't have the power to create money out of thin air, then they will burrow the money to a bank which can (and the said bank will then just write down the amount, they won't create it or acquire it legitimately (meaning that it won't be true wealth)), so that's even more usury due to interests.
-
I'm not sure what you see money as, but it sounds like you think it's something more than an alternative to direct repayment (i.e. You give a person corn muffins and they repay you by painting your chicken coop). It's true that the system has become much more complicated, but money is still what it was: a record of society's debt to you. It's just that when civilisation get's to the point it's at now, you need governance to decide how people deal with each other and what debt is fair, or else there couldn't be such a large society. We get it 'wrong' and corruption still exists (to whatever extent you believe) and that should be (and is) tackled when it comes to light, but that doesn't mean the monetary system isn't working well at keeping a community of millions of people together, busy and happy.
Or do you think the word 'economics' means 'making money'? If so you should look at what good 'making money' does when hyperinflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation) hits.
-
Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pQNkX8jLM
-
Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pQNkX8jLM
Yet again, more surprise at how money has to be created when there is a need for it. I'm not sure what they think real money is if they see this as fraudulent. Tell me this: If you ran a country, how would you maintain a system where everyone can keep track of who is in indebtted to who? [No, not money debt. Debt of services or goods.] Perhaps in your country, you give everyone their fair share of money to begin with and then do nothing after that. What happens then when one guy does everyone's chores for a month , accumulates all that money for himself and decides to hold onto it? Nobody can do business with anyone anymore so I guess your country will just have to come to a standstill until he decides to spend some.
Also this video takes great pains to be entertaining, but makes no effort to give a level-headed account of things. Apparently the world is worse than it's ever been because people still die and some people are super-rich and also a lot of people are still poor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pQNkX8jLM#t=5m30s) Also, it turns out that anything complex or hard to grasp is actually nonsense so you don't have to try to learn anything about it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0pQNkX8jLM#t=5m56s)
-
What you are saying Nux is all assuring, but I don't think it's true. I will answer one of your question : if I wanted a money that actually worked, I would have a gold standard, not a money that gets printed by the most fraudulent men this world has ever seen.
-
Of course they do, not only do they steal money in ever way possible and imaginable, but when you ask for a loan, they will simply write the amount leaned and that'll be it. And if they are the types of banks who don't have the power to create money out of thin air, then they will burrow the money to a bank which can (and the said bank will then just write down the amount, they won't create it or acquire it legitimately (meaning that it won't be true wealth)), so that's even more usury due to interests.
That's not true. What a bank will do is take everyone's deposits/investments and then lend them out to other people who need that money (eg for a home loan). Banks effectively act as a middle man that hooks people up who need cash with people who have surplus cash. Sure they make some money out of this but lending money is an inherently risky business. Not only do you need to make enough money to cover your expenses but you also need to make enough money to cover the loans that default. Banks effectively remove risk in investing while also allowing average people access to loans. What exactly is wrong with this?
-
What you are saying Nux is all assuring, but I don't think it's true. I will answer one of your question : if I wanted a money that actually worked, I would have a gold standard, not a money that gets printed by the most fraudulent men this world has ever seen.
Very good explanations at the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080701142241AAIydIG
-
What you are saying Nux is all assuring, but I don't think it's true. I will answer one of your question : if I wanted a money that actually worked, I would have a gold standard, not a money that gets printed by the most fraudulent men this world has ever seen.
Very good explanations at the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080701142241AAIydIG
Professor Antal Fekete explains the question even better. I suggest most of you who truly care about the subject read his stuff. I am personally reading a book called The return to the gold standard (the translation is from french, which is "Le retour au standard or", I'm not sure if an english version of the book exists.
-
Of course they do, not only do they steal money in ever way possible and imaginable, but when you ask for a loan, they will simply write the amount leaned and that'll be it. And if they are the types of banks who don't have the power to create money out of thin air, then they will burrow the money to a bank which can (and the said bank will then just write down the amount, they won't create it or acquire it legitimately (meaning that it won't be true wealth)), so that's even more usury due to interests.
That's not true. What a bank will do is take everyone's deposits/investments and then lend them out to other people who need that money (eg for a home loan). Banks effectively act as a middle man that hooks people up who need cash with people who have surplus cash. Sure they make some money out of this but lending money is an inherently risky business. Not only do you need to make enough money to cover your expenses but you also need to make enough money to cover the loans that default. Banks effectively remove risk in investing while also allowing average people access to loans. What exactly is wrong with this?
That's in Alice in wonderland. Nowadays there are these things called CDS and fractionnal reserve.
-
Fractional reserve = Legislation that prevents a bank from loaning out all their money. Banks have to keep a certain percentage of peoples deposits/investments in cash. This helps to prevent people from being unable to withdraw their deposits due to a run on the banks.
My understanding of CDS indicates that banks don't really have anything to do with them other then as part of risk management/investment.
-
Fractional reserve is one of the reasons why the banks aren't lending out the money of others, as you say. CDS is another way to avoid fractional reserve, thus they can give even more of the money that they don't have to others, without risking anything and winning on all sides (they win on interest gain, no risk, and they even bet on the failure of their clients).
-
if I wanted a money that actually worked, I would have a gold standard
Which is exactly what I thought you'd do and I've already given reasons why that fails:
Perhaps in your country, you give everyone their fair share of money to begin with and then do nothing after that. What happens then when one guy does everyone's chores for a month , accumulates all that money for himself and decides to hold onto it? Nobody can do business with anyone anymore so I guess your country will just have to come to a standstill until he decides to spend some.
And one more time to make sure you read it:
What happens ... when one guy ... accumulates all that money ... ? Nobody can do business ...
As is said in JOURNEYMAN's links, this is what happened (when the US was indebted to other countries during wartime and when there was a run on the dollar during depression) and this is why the US was forced to 'create money' that they didn't have in gold.
The system isn't the issue here. Not on paper at least. The problem occurs when a society of people don't get what they paid for in taxes, but forgets about it/doesn't understand it. The problem occurs when bankers are in a no-lose situation, because their loss is everyone's loss. The problem occurs when people take advantage of other people.
-
First of all, there is no such thing as people accumulating all the gold legitimately. For instance, monopolization in such a system doesn't work, the fact that there are monopoly in today's world, is generally because of the flaws of our current system (edit : I'll precise that I am not talking about government taking a sector of economy, and that if I am talking about monopoly it's because IF a person had to gather all the riches, it's because he'd need a strong economical weapon, like the monopoly of an important sector). Secondly, gold standard (which generally include silver too) can come up with different currencies, which are food that last long (dates, rice...). Thirdly, the money HAS to circulate, because a system based on gold standard is supposed to be well done enough so there isn't this thing called usury, thus there is no exchange that benefits only one side, another reason is that there isn't 1 piece of gold that is promised to 20 persons, unlike 1 bill of your fiat currency. For these reasons and more, even the lack of gold isn't problematic, and if the gold owners want to buy something, then they will have to make a fair exchange and give some of their gold. Other then that, the well informed people know that at some times the gold is to conserve, because the true capital lies into it. So I'm not saying you won't get fooled, I'm just saying that it probably won't happen to everyone, and that even if it happened there are, as I said, different means of trade, that still have an intrinsic value. Basically, see it this way, a good system with a gold standard won't put barriers to the economy because the gold is lacking.
You probably will find it hard to believe in the gold standard, especially in a system that makes it valuable, because the work of economist of these last 100 years was mostly to destroy all credibility the gold standard had.
I also suggest that you go out and understand about the fraudulent, intrinsically destroyer of riches, fiat money and it's corrupted system that destroys the real sense of the economic system, it would be much easier to see why the gold standard actually works.
-
to put what garrion has said into perspective, look into the past of america. from our founding to about 1970 or so, gold was $35 an ounce. yes, that is right, thirty-five dollars an pounce. watch some three stooges some time, you'll see how much value the american dollar has lost. for example, back in the 30's, a week at a hotel was one dollar.
compare to now, where gold is ~$1500 an ounce. a DAY at a bad hotel runs roughly $35.
this stuff isnt restricted to century scale changes. for example, the year i was born, 1981, a loaf of bread was ~ 10 cents. nowadays, 30 years later, you will be lucky to find bread at $1.50 a loaf.
i am of the opinion that bread is a good benchmark of the value of a currency, considering bread has been the basic building block of western civilization for a good thousand years or more.
in the simplest terms: a fractional reserve system does not work. it does not work for the same reason leninist communism does not work. human nature. humans tend toward greed, and their political/economic systems are plagued by corruption. it has been this way throughout all ~6000 years of recorded history, worldwide.
a central bank also does not work because of the same principals. if an entity has the sole power to coin money, that entity is going to be the target of corruption, as american history has shown over the past hundred years. the federal reserve system was founded by men who saw it as the best way to consolidate their own power and wealth. it was not founded with the best interest of the american people at heart. unlike our government, made for the people, by the people - the federal reserve system of fractional reserve + central bank was made for the bankers, by the bankers.
we desperately need a system, like the gold standard, where the value of a currency is backed by a desirable commodity, like gold, rather than a system where the value of a currency is determined by the amount of that currency in circulation. especially when the entity that decides how much currency is in circulation has the sole authority on deciding how much currency is in circulation.
nux: wartime debt. you must remember how things were done back back then. back then, the debt incurred during war was customarily dropped onto the loser of the war (this is what set germany up for the rise of hitler and WW2). back in those days, nations managed to get monopolies on industry. for example, in WW1, germany had a total monopoly on the production of light bulbs.no one else in the world manufactured light bulbs. because this was allowed, when trade ended with germany, we americans had to start a lightbulb industry, then expand it enough to support wartime production. in the space of a few months. to support this, the government offered massive subsidies. the government then had to take loans to back these, as it could not afford to pay them (it pushed war bonds pretty heavy back then... i wonder what pushed us to stop relying on our citizenry with bonds, and start taking loans from foreign governments)
had the government not been already corrupted by big business and big banking, we more than likely would not been in such big debt. a truly free market has historically been shown to regulate itself, it is when people start meddling.... making the market progressively less and less free... that "capitalism" starts to fail.
we humans have a habit of viewing the past as if they had the perspective on the world that we have today. think of the renaissance painting of biblical scenes as if they were in medieval europe. people even 100 years ago had different values and ethics than we do now. nowadays, invading a country without helping to rebuild it after the war is almost unthinkably barbaric. heaping war debt onto the loser of a war is also unthinkable. total war is a barbaric concept also, not having existed for westerners since hiroshima and nagasaki. unrestricted travel over most of the world is equally unthinkable these days. can you imagine crossing the boarders of many countries without so much as a passport check?
TL;DR: fractional reserve, central bank, "hybrid capitalism" = bad. gold standard, sound currency, true capitalism = good. also: ethics change a lot in 100 years.
-
First of all, there is no such thing as people accumulating all the gold legitimately.
It was a scenario designed to illustrate what fails in a monetary system with zero change in money supply. It wasn't about gold specifically. It wasn't a description of an existing system. It was your simplistic system taken to an extreme to test it. I shouldn't have to spell out what that says about similar systems in similar situations.
The reason the measures we have today exist is because we (historically) saw how the system struggled/failed when we hit a bump in the road (e.g. war, disaster, panic) and people said "never again!". Now you're looking back on a history of changes to the economy and saying "WTF! why is this so complex? We should scrap all this and put things back to how it started!!", ready for the next bump to come along so we can watch the system fall apart again.
I'm entirely in favour of looking for improvements to a system which still, and always will have, ethical grey areas and abuses. But unless you are willing to look at what actually works about the current system we have, you will never improve anything. The benefits we all enjoy (such as chatting to eachother about all this in all this free time we have) are testament to the fact that things a going pretty good under the system we currently have.
And since I apparently have to, I'll repeat: I'm entirely in favour of looking for improvements but a return to the gold standard is just asking for history to repeat itself.
EDIT: Also, I'd like to note that I'm no expert on economics and I enjoy reading up about anything I haven't heard of or understand. That isn't to say I don't know something about economics, just that there will be things I didn't know existed in your (United States) monetary system and I'd be glad to hear about anything I might be missing.
-
I...I'm speechless.
-
Fractional reserve is one of the reasons why the banks aren't lending out the money of others, as you say. CDS is another way to avoid fractional reserve, thus they can give even more of the money that they don't have to others, without risking anything and winning on all sides (they win on interest gain, no risk, and they even bet on the failure of their clients).
Fractional reserve IS the reason why banks are lending out money of others. It's also the reason why they don't lend out all their money. CDS as fair as I understand it can be used as part of a risk management system. What exactly is wrong with CDS or fractional reserve banking?
I'm not an American (our system works slightly differently) but I think people might be confusing fractional reserve banking with the central bank. You can have a system very very similar to fractional reserve banking that doesn't rely on a central bank.
I'm also kind of curious as to
1. Why is inflation such a terrible thing?
2. Why are you be advocating for less regulations rather then more especially if corruption/unethical behaviour is an issue?
-
Fractional reserve is the reason why the banks don't keep the money of the people who deposit it, but instead make placement with it to earn more money (usually by stealing riches or destroying them, so basically it's usury). I am not advocating for less regulations in general, I am pointing out that the deregulation of these last years and mostly how the changes of the monetary system and of the roles of the bank are crucial to the troubles we've had in 2008, and to the troubles that will happen again soon enough.
Inflation in a system with a gold standard isn't a problem, it's always low. The problem now is that the government wants it to be as low as possible, even when the conditions make it bad for the economy. A fall of the inflation is another problem, more subtle tho, because it makes the market go away, since it can create a fall of the enterprise, or the incapacity of fixing the prices of the market. It's a domino effect.
You people should get away of Milton and Keynes, take a couple of good breathe, and come back (edit : to seriousness).
-
Fractional reserve is the reason why the banks don't keep the money of the people who deposit it, but instead make placement with it to earn more money (usually by stealing riches or destroying them, so basically it's usury).
Banks increase liquidity by doing this. If they didn't then it would be much harder/expensive for people to get home loans, business loans, etc, etc. How are banks stealing riches/destroying them? What they are doing is no different then any other investor (they of course have a lot more money and have to be a lot more careful).
I am not advocating for less regulations in general, I am pointing out that the deregulation of these last years and mostly how the changes of the monetary system and of the roles of the bank are crucial to the troubles we've had in 2008, and to the troubles that will happen again soon enough.
Someone else was. I agree that strong regulations are important in the finance/banking industry.
Inflation in a system with a gold standard isn't a problem, it's always low. The problem now is that the government wants it to be as low as possible, even when the conditions make it bad for the economy. A fall of the inflation is another problem, more subtle tho, because it makes the market go away, since it can create a fall of the enterprise, or the incapacity of fixing the prices of the market. It's a domino effect.
Surely this could be fixed with better policy and doesn't require a departure from our current system?
-
Some folks here seem to be getting their basic concepts mixed up. Here is some stuff to help you.
Fractional Reserve Banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking)
Money Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation)
Gold Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)
Reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_reserves)
Money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_%28economics%29#Empirical_measures)
Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap)
Capital requirements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement)
Credit default swaps are not related to the money supply. They are derivatives used to insure loans and speculate (depending on which side of the transaction you are on). If you want to learn more about derivatives and such John Hull (http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~hull/) wrote the book. Derivatives are off balance sheet items and do not count towards reserve ratios. The bank of international settlements gives guidelines on those that most places follow. They fall under the BASEL accords. Basel iii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III)
Having a fixed currency is no magic bullet that'll fix all your problems, quite the opposite, there is a reason no country uses it. Now you can't really argue the fine points of how to organize an economy with any authority unless you get down to the nitty gritty details. There is a place for that sort of thing and I do not think the tremulous forums is it. Perhaps if you are so keen on economics issues you should pursue academic research into the field of economics or finance.
A funny note on Gold. Did you know that gold these days is also traded using a reserve system. There is not enough of the yellow stuff to satisfy demand by a long shot and clearing physical gold is inefficient to the point of limiting trade.
-
Some folks here seem to be getting their basic concepts mixed up. Here is some stuff to help you.
It's been a while since I've done any finance. Hopefully I didn't screw too much up.
There is a place for that sort of thing and I do not think the tremulous forums is it. Perhaps if you are so keen on economics issues you should pursue academic research into the field of economics or finance.
The Tremulous forums probably isn't the right place for most stuff in off-topic either.
-
Fractional reserve is the reason why the banks don't keep the money of the people who deposit it, but instead make placement with it to earn more money (usually by stealing riches or destroying them, so basically it's usury).
Banks increase liquidity by doing this. If they didn't then it would be much harder/expensive for people to get home loans, business loans, etc, etc. How are banks stealing riches/destroying them? What they are doing is no different then any other investor (they of course have a lot more money and have to be a lot more careful).
I am not advocating for less regulations in general, I am pointing out that the deregulation of these last years and mostly how the changes of the monetary system and of the roles of the bank are crucial to the troubles we've had in 2008, and to the troubles that will happen again soon enough.
Someone else was. I agree that strong regulations are important in the finance/banking industry.
Inflation in a system with a gold standard isn't a problem, it's always low. The problem now is that the government wants it to be as low as possible, even when the conditions make it bad for the economy. A fall of the inflation is another problem, more subtle tho, because it makes the market go away, since it can create a fall of the enterprise, or the incapacity of fixing the prices of the market. It's a domino effect.
Surely this could be fixed with better policy and doesn't require a departure from our current system?
I will not repeat myself indefinitely, fractional reserve means the bank only needs a fraction of the money they can loan you. It's like if I had 10 dollars and I could give you a loan of 100$, it doesn't increase the liquidation, it simply increases the amount of money they can play with, and it releases them from the obligations of having the capitals to back it up. Just like when you put 100$ in the bank, it's as if you gave them the possibility to make 1000$ loan. Talking about liquidity, try and go get the 100$ you gave them, you probably won't have it, especially if others go for it.
I will also point out that the fact that the banks can give loan to a lot of people, even the poor, is also due to CDS (which means they have almost no risk of losing the money, since someone else takes the risk for them), and that this was a major element of the crash of 2008.
If my dear friend Jane seriously thinks the gold is lacking, he should be aware that the gold is currently departing, and guess who is buying it if it's not the banks that ruined the economy? Case in the point, there is no more contango.
CDS ARE related to money supply, as CDS allows bank to avoid the law of insurance, so they need a much lower money reserve to back up these said transactions while still making money out of it, and the fact that CDS are derivatives mean that in the crash of 2008, the change of the interest rates on CDS and on the goods bought with the money of it AND the delocalization created the domino effect as we've seen it. But all these elements wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the de-responsibilization and the de-regulation changes that were made, thus made the bank almost free of constraint, and because the USA abandoned the gold standard (which was in contradiction to the constitution).
If you believe that the amount of gold offered on the market are too low, you are right, but the reason why the gold stocks are low now is because the fraudulent economist, and the clear-headed people are actually conserving their gold instead of selling it, as they know where the true capital lies (that, and in primary matters or lands). And within these last 60 years, the amount of gold dug was greater than what the world has seen. Also, the amount of gold needed in circulation for an economy based on gold standard is the LOWEST based on percentage, so don't fool yourself, gold truly HAS an intrinsic value, let's just talk about it's physical property.
-
there is a reason no country uses it.
because the biggest banks here in america, are also some of the biggest banks worldwide? and the fact that we mandated such a thing for most of the world at the conclusion of world war 2?
there is also a reason marijuana is illegal through most of the world. the US will not give you money unless you cave to its demands. we'll go to war with you if you dont (see the mideast, where much speculation is that we started the iraq war because sadam was threatening to price oil in euros rather than dollars.... much like iran is currently doing.
aside from garrion, did many of you know that? that we mandated at the end of ww2 that all oil from the mid-east is to be priced in dollars?
i advdocate less regulation on markets, not banks. banks need regulation to prevent corruption, unlike nearly any free market.
also, why do banks deal in other things for their fractional reserve, rather than exclusively commodities? trading in commodities is pretty much guaranteed profit. the trick is dealing with a large enough variety that you can not buy something when it is priced to sell.
janev, speculation is part of the biggest problem in western economics. speculation is what allowed for the first great depression.... and our recent "great recession" (acknowledging that it was even a depression, let alone a depression worse than the "great" one is very hard for the popular media)
-
there is a reason no country uses it.
because the biggest banks here in america, are also some of the biggest banks worldwide? and the fact that we mandated such a thing for most of the world at the conclusion of world war 2?
there is also a reason marijuana is illegal through most of the world. the US will not give you money unless you cave to its demands. we'll go to war with you if you dont (see the mideast, where much speculation is that we started the iraq war because sadam was threatening to price oil in euros rather than dollars.... much like iran is currently doing.
aside from garrion, did many of you know that? that we mandated at the end of ww2 that all oil from the mid-east is to be priced in dollars?
i advdocate less regulation on markets, not banks. banks need regulation to prevent corruption, unlike nearly any free market.
also, why do banks deal in other things for their fractional reserve, rather than exclusively commodities? trading in commodities is pretty much guaranteed profit. the trick is dealing with a large enough variety that you can not buy something when it is priced to sell.
janev, speculation is part of the biggest problem in western economics. speculation is what allowed for the first great depression.... and our recent "great recession" (acknowledging that it was even a depression, let alone a depression worse than the "great" one is very hard for the popular media)
Rak, there are countries which uses the gold standard, and these countries are exactly being diabolized by the western mass medias, and are the prey of the future attacks the NATO's forces will deliver. These countries are also the only countries which aren't in debt, so the west has all the reasons to submit them to their corrupted and intrinsically fraudulent paper money economical system.
-
which are they garrion? i as actually unaware anyone was still on the gold standard.
-
Wikipedia says no country uses the Gold Standard so I'm inclined to believe it.
Also it looks like there's some confusion over different notions of 'money' being used here. Here's my attempt at explaining it and feel free to call me out on my errors: 'Money' as your average person knows it (i.e. notes and coins) is the monetary base (M0). There are also broader measures of 'Money' which not only include the monetary base, but also the 'promises to pay money' as extra money itself (M1, M2, etc). In fractional reserve banking, no money in the monetary base is created, but since 'promises' can be exchanged just like standard money can it is considered money too and in this sense money is created. This isn't the same thing as making money from nothing, since the creation of this 'money' can only occur when promises are made to repay a concrete amount of M0 money. Whether the system is good at stimulating prosperity and avoiding crises is a matter of opinion, requiring greater scrutiny and separate from any intrinsic problems/evils you assert it has.
-
Danmal your stuff seemed mostly in order and by not being the right place I mean you won't get top notch content. It's mostly just wild eyed conspiracy theory and arguments pushing various political agendas. All very confusing for the layman who can't separate the politics from the economics. ;D
Monetary Economics is the branch of economics that studies these things for whoever it might concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_economics)
Credit default swaps have very little effect on the money supply. They are risk management and speculation tools used by banks and other financial market participants. These kinds of derivatives allow markets to transfer risks efficiently to those most able to bare them. As such they are tools and of course tools can be abused. The way they effect money supply is through the risk management department of banks. Banks with efficient/involved risk management systems are awarded slightly lower reserve requirements, which of course makes sense, if you have less risk on your balance sheet you do not need as large a buffer. It is not some ultimate money generating machine. Again Basel iii has the details for banks.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar
I'm not quite sure if these countries (indonesia, malaysia and libya) are into what we could call a totally converted system to the gold standard, but they used gold as a valid payment for some merchandise and some of them were definitely going for a return to the gold standard, which also explain why they made it a valid currency. A lot of countries are now also aiming at going back to the gold standard (Iran for example might go this road). It's important to understand that a full leap to the gold standard isn't really possible due to the geo-political situation (with the NATO forces being bullies), but take for example that Libya had a gold-for-oil plan (not only euro-for-oil), I am sure you are well aware of the importance of the dollar-for-oil, for the US dollar to be the prime currency of the world (coupled with the military punition they will inflict if it isn't taken). So call it a full gold standard or not (edit : or a partial gold standard, or even a plan to get back to it within some time), but the use of it was definitely growing and it was obviously moving toward this goal.
Edit: I'm sorry if I went to quickly to verify if the gold standard was fully implanted, the acceptance of gold for various ressources mislead me into saying they were in a fully gold standard system, but they are definitely going there and making it step by step (especially due to the menaces of the NATO forces, they cannot just jump into it), by aiming at the key elements (gold-for-oil instead of dollar-for-oil, for the Libyan case) to release themselves from the fraudulent paper money.
-
Wikipedia says no country uses the Gold Standard so I'm inclined to believe it.
Also it looks like there's some confusion over different notions of 'money' being used here. Here's my attempt at explaining it and feel free to call me out on my errors: 'Money' as your average person knows it (i.e. notes and coins) is the monetary base (M0). There are also broader measures of 'Money' which not only include the monetary base, but also the 'promises to pay money' as extra money itself (M1, M2, etc). In fractional reserve banking, no money in the monetary base is created, but since 'promises' can be exchanged just like standard money can it is considered money too and in this sense money is created. This isn't the same thing as making money from nothing, since the creation of this 'money' can only occur when promises are made to repay a concrete amount of M0 money. Whether the system is good at stimulating prosperity and avoiding crises is a matter of opinion, requiring greater scrutiny and separate from any intrinsic problems/evils you assert it has.
I am not saying they are creating money out of nothing because of fractional reserve, but I am saying that due to fractional reserve, they can simply make loan without having the capitals to back it up, which means they can gain a lot of money, with very little money, and it also creates usury because of the interest rates, and all the other toxic effects. As for the money creation, the bankers (of the central bank) can create the money, as they have this right and not the governments (this is the case for most countries having a central bank, that is connected in some way to the central bank of the US, or should I say to the banks of wall street, like JP morgan, goldman sachs, etc.). So basically, how they create money is they either print it, or they just write it in their data, when they lack of it (so they avoid obligations) or when they must make a loan. My point on the creation of money and on the fractional reserve are quite different, and I hope I have nuanced well enough for you to understand.
-
Wikipedia says no country uses the Gold Standard so I'm inclined to believe it.
Also it looks like there's some confusion over different notions of 'money' being used here. Here's my attempt at explaining it and feel free to call me out on my errors: 'Money' as your average person knows it (i.e. notes and coins) is the monetary base (M0). There are also broader measures of 'Money' which not only include the monetary base, but also the 'promises to pay money' as extra money itself (M1, M2, etc). In fractional reserve banking, no money in the monetary base is created, but since 'promises' can be exchanged just like standard money can it is considered money too and in this sense money is created. This isn't the same thing as making money from nothing, since the creation of this 'money' can only occur when promises are made to repay a concrete amount of M0 money. Whether the system is good at stimulating prosperity and avoiding crises is a matter of opinion, requiring greater scrutiny and separate from any intrinsic problems/evils you assert it has.
hello, national debt.
also, the money from the federal income tax is solely used to pay off the interest charged by the (private) federal reserve bank for printing out all of these new, debt-backed (promise to pay = debt) currency. note i say just the interest, as the government also needs to pay the bank the amount printed.
this private bank holds the nation's reserves, and owns whatever part of the treasury china does not. they make loans to large banks and industry. the members of their board of directors is not public knowledge and they refuse to be publicly audited. they set the interest rates that every other bank has to maintain.
that anyone cannot see that the federal reserve is poison to our economy, and a blight upon our nation, putting us into debt for generations to come is beyond me. the fact that gold is not 35$ an ounce, as it has been throughout history, is almost as astounding as its current price, ~1500$ an ounce.
furthermore, the concept of paper money is not very hard to understand. as is the concept of money itself. but for brevity's sake, let's stick to paper. paper is supposed to represent a "promise to pay" some actual real money (a commodity of value, historically in western culture, as well as much of asia and at least northern africa, gold and other precious metals). here in america, we were on such a "gold standard" since our inception (aside from the fact our dollar, like its spanish namesake is based on a measurement of silver). the paper money most commonly issued were by banks. you brought such paper money into the bank to exchange it for coins and bullion of equal value.
when we switched to a nationwide currency (an action that was vocally objected to, and had been vetoed several times before) our dollars remained redeemable in equal weight of silver and gold till the early 60's i think it was. we even used real silver in our coins (i have a bunch of quarters worth $2-6 based on their silver content alone). if you look at the historical price of gold in dollars, this is when it began to climb the mountain.
i would estimate that this is when the federal reserve had implemented everything granted it when it was formed in 1917.
so, in closing; referring to the historical price in gold, can anyone tell me what use our current system is? we have had crash and crash and crash with the federal reserve. we have been inflated beyond belief. you can begin to describe objects by their atom count using our national debt. i look at the historical price of gold and see that indefinably long line of 35$ an ounce. an economy is built upon its monetary system. so, why do we have what we have?
-
You have what you have Rak (as an economical system), because it's the history of the United-States and of the presidents of the United-States to fight against the banks. Sadly, the banks have won the battle when Woodrow Wilson created the FED, and basically gave the power to the bankers. Woodrow Wilson said this on his dead bed :
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
The quote is disputed, a lot of people are saying it was misattributed, for instance on Wikiquote it says that, but I'll still put it here, for the simple reason that I don't refer myself to wikiquote.
Anyway, I also believe that all this fraudulous exercise is FOR Israel and it's new coming as the first world power, just like war on Iran is to make Israel the main beneficiary. Israel keeps gaining more power the more problems happen in the world (related to economics or war in the middle east mostly). It IS understandable if you understand the role of Sayanims (Israeli agents) and the role of Wall Street, which is composed with a large amount of Zionists. People must understand that economy is much more closely related to the military affairs than it may seems, and that military affairs and economy are also much more related to religions, and this is where the role of secret societies comes into play. It is Israel that will become a super power, similarly with how the United-States became the first super power of the world (when they passed in front of England) : through wars (or 1 big war) and economical problems (or 1 big crisis). This is my vision, and at the rate at which thing goes, it should be observable soon.
-
Anyway, I also believe that all this fraudulous exercise is FOR Israel and it's new coming as the first world power, just like war on Iran is to make Israel the main beneficiary. Israel keeps gaining more power the more problems happen in the world (related to economics or war in the middle east mostly). It IS understandable if you understand the role of Sayanims (Israeli agents) and the role of Wall Street, which is composed with a large amount of Zionists. People must understand that economy is much more closely related to the military affairs than it may seems, and that military affairs and economy are also much more related to religions, and this is where the role of secret societies comes into play. It is Israel that will become a super power, similarly with how the United-States became the first super power of the world (when they passed in front of England) : through wars (or 1 big war) and economical problems (or 1 big crisis). This is my vision, and at the rate at which thing goes, it should be observable soon.
Quoted for posterity.
-
I called the NTC (national transition council) for Libya, and I made a right call. I am even more febrile at the following.
-
Yes, public debt is a big problem but the system is still keeping track of it. I'll reiterate that the problem is not the system itself but the public letting it get out of control. It is (indirectly) your debt and you should decide when to claim it back and when to count it as a broken promise. What you should not do is complain about the very part of the system which is allowing you to keep track of this.
Please get the idea out of your head that a bank is some sort of evil creature. The banks are the monetary system in action. You're disassociating people from something that is a very human problem: people with power get what they want (pretty much the definition of power). This has and will always be the case and has nothing to do with any particular societal system. If you want to get what you want, then exert your own power on the people around you (e.g. protest, debate, rebel, etc).
Now, remember that any organisation is made of individuals all vying for their personal gain. This causes a degree of uncertainty which makes it hard to form covert organisations on the scales you're talking about. It's unlikely (read "a fucking stupid notion") that the US government is a unified personality bent on giving Israel (also a unified personality) power over the world to do with what their evil Jewish hearts desire. What you're actually seeing is politics and diplomacy and they're designed to hold onto power, not give it away.
Also the "first superpower of the world" is nonsense. The term itself originated after the second world war to describe the three great powers at that time and so if anything it's now the "last superpower of the world", a title it may not keep for much longer.
-
Oh ok, Nux.
-
Yes, public debt is a big problem but the system is still keeping track of it. I'll reiterate that the problem is not the system itself but the public letting it get out of control. It is (indirectly) your debt and you should decide when to claim it back and when to count it as a broken promise. What you should not do is complain about the very part of the system which is allowing you to keep track of this.
Please get the idea out of your head that a bank is some sort of evil creature. The banks are the monetary system in action. You're disassociating people from something that is a very human problem: people with power get what they want (pretty much the definition of power). This has and will always be the case and has nothing to do with any particular societal system. If you want to get what you want, then exert your own power on the people around you (e.g. protest, debate, rebel, etc).
Now, remember that any organisation is made of individuals all vying for their personal gain. This causes a degree of uncertainty which makes it hard to form covert organisations on the scales you're talking about. It's unlikely (read "a fucking stupid notion") that the US government is a unified personality bent on giving Israel (also a unified personality) power over the world to do with what their evil Jewish hearts desire. What you're actually seeing is politics and diplomacy and they're designed to hold onto power, not give it away.
Also the "first superpower of the world" is nonsense. The term itself originated after the second world war to describe the three great powers at that time and so if anything it's now the "last superpower of the world", a title it may not keep for much longer.
nux, look up the legal definition of corporation.
also, look up "real world cyborgs".
i dont think you quite understand the nature of the beast in question, so to speak.
-
Rak, with your last post, I am assuming you understood the message in the Apocalypse of John? ;)
Anyway, I am assuming this because you seem to be relating your profane knowledge with the said text. A lot of people, even non-religious ones, talk about our current period as a period of revelation, meaning the religious writings converges with the profane knowledge (edit : in a way that it is evident to some). If anyone is interested in such questions, I suggest watching the conferences of the Sheik Imran N. Hosein, especially those concerning Dajjal. To my detractors, I am not solely basing myself on religious texts, I did read some pretty serious books (and the system's answer to these books was just another proof of their seriousness) that even the most Atheist could agree with, and I have studied these subjects by myself (it's not in school that you will learn this, guess why) BOTH religiously and materialistically.
-
Rak, with your last post, I am assuming you understood the message in the Apocalypse of John? ;)
Anyway, I am assuming this because you seem to be relating your profane knowledge with the said text. A lot of people, even non-religious ones, talk about our current period as a period of revelation, meaning the religious writings converges with the profane knowledge (edit : in a way that it is evident to some). If anyone is interested in such questions, I suggest watching the conferences of the Sheik Imran N. Hosein, especially those concerning Dajjal. To my detractors, I am not solely basing myself on religious texts, I did read some pretty serious books (and the system's answer to these books was just another proof of their seriousness) that even the most Atheist could agree with, and I have studied these subjects by myself (it's not in school that you will learn this, guess why) BOTH religiously and materialistically.
while i am quite schooled on christian theology and current endtime stuff, that was not what i was referencing with my choice of terminology. i was referencing the fact that legally, a corporation is a person, and that makes it, by definition, a cybernetic organism. humans serve as some of its organs, construction and computers serve as the inorganic component.
you will find that corporations often have interests that are not in the best interest of the people who make it up. in politics you will find much the same with political parties, where a politician will go against his constituents and against his own professed morality to bend to the will of the party.
-
I'm well acquainted with the kind of 'creature' people can constitute when they form groups. I'm familiar with how much ethical lines are blurred when the interests of the group outweigh the interests of the individuals that it comprises. You only have to look to the cells of our own bodies to see a good analogy for this concept and the moral problems that come with it. Yet, if you take the analogy further, you'll see that the body doesn't benefit from the majority of it's cells failing, even if in the short term some cells/germs might. In the same way, the banking system doesn't benefit from screwing you and everyone over, but some people will benefit, albeit in the short term.
So the system isn't the evil thing here. You're benefiting hugely from it, especially compared to other people in other systems. You should be fighting the evil people not trying to kill the body.
-
now this analogy will perhaps make sense.
the central bank along with the fractional reserve system are a cancer that is killing not only this nation, but western society as we know it.
perhaps, like communism, it works decent enough at a city or even state level, but it is doomed to fail and cause catastrophic damage at a national level.
now for obscure analogy.
the fed is landrew.
-
You're so naive Nux, I am sure you had kick-ass grades in your economy and politic classes (if you had these classes). I suggest you go read up on Antal Fekete's writing a little bit more, maybe you won't say so many things that are factually disproved since a long time, but who am I fooling, I don't think you really care enough for that.
-
The Final word: The United States and the World is ruled by a few corporatist bankers who control nearly everything including television news, courts, government, and the justice system. They control the world's money supply. They want to get in the middle east to control the sale of oil and make a requirement that you must pay in US currency in order to buy oil. That way they can print all the money for themselves and not world too much about inflation.
-
The Final word: The United States and the World is ruled by a few corporatist bankers who control nearly everything including television news, courts, government, and the justice system. They control the world's money supply. They want to get in the middle east to control the sale of oil and make a requirement that you must pay in US currency in order to buy oil. That way they can print all the money for themselves and not world too much about inflation.
moar details !
-
The Final word: The United States and the World is ruled by a few corporatist bankers who control nearly everything including television news, courts, government, and the justice system. They control the world's money supply. They want to get in the middle east to control the sale of oil and make a requirement that you must pay in US currency in order to buy oil. That way they can print all the money for themselves and not world too much about inflation.
ummmm. that requirement has existed since the end of ww2. one of the reasons we invaded iraq when we did was that sadam was going to start pricing oil in euros rather than dollars.
-
The Final word: The United States and the World is ruled by a few corporatist bankers who control nearly everything including television news, courts, government, and the justice system. They control the world's money supply. They want to get in the middle east to control the sale of oil and make a requirement that you must pay in US currency in order to buy oil. That way they can print all the money for themselves and not world too much about inflation.
ummmm. that requirement has existed since the end of ww2. one of the reasons we invaded iraq when we did was that sadam was going to start pricing oil in euros rather than dollars.
That is not exactly accurate.
The Oil Dollar agreement was not begun until the Nixon years. It was a method to save the USA economy at the time and abandon the gold-based currency system that was more common worldwide before. Right now, that Oil Dollar system is not working, having already lost control as nations move back to gold without openly announcing this. The Comex gold prices understate the real metal prices, while actual physical gold prices are going skyhigh. Iran sells oil to Turkey, for example, but this trade is really done for gold; turkish money is exchanged for gold, and the gold is taken to Iran, disguising that the trade is really gold for oil. Many other nations are disguising their open abandonment of the dollar system with currency-exchange agreements and Basket of Currencies type financial games. Eventually the US Dollar will become so minimal value internationally that it will reach and tipping point and spark a collapse, probably taking a few other similar fiat currencies down with it.