The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Turning Swords Into Plowshares
A review of Ron Paul's exploration of the American malaise
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_91709234

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Dr. Ron Paul has written many books but I would highly recommend his latest, Swords into Plowshares: A Lifetime in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity, for those who are particularly interested in how his political views developed and what his assessment of today’s political landscape might be. As the title suggests, the focus of the book is on turning America’s apparent love affair with foreign wars into something much more responsible, notably a nation self-confident and secure enough to desist from intervening in other peoples’ quarrels and turning instead to the development of the type of liberty rich republic envisioned by our country’s founders.

I have long been a great admirer of Dr. Paul and was, full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran for the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008. I have always respected the clarity of his vision and his willingness to address issues that other politicians avoid with an unflinching honesty. Indeed, during his long tenure in Congress he might well have been the most honest man in the chamber, which is an attribute that earned him both vilification from the ethically challenged and accolades of support from all across the political spectrum, even from those who normally would have been skeptical of some of the policies that he promoted.

ORDER IT NOW

Most interestingly in Swords into Plowshares is how Dr. Paul describes his own personal journey starting with his youth in Pennsylvania and continuing on with his education, military service and eventual entry into Congress as a representative from Texas. His appreciation that America has been on the wrong course grew on him commensurate with his life experiences, most particularly his observation that the country had become addicted to war through the manipulation of its economy and political system as well as by its own delusional perception of its national interests. Undeclared and unconstitutional war became the new normal starting with Korea, following on two global wars that the United States could easily have avoided, and today’s world has become even more dangerous due to the web of entangling relationships that Washington has heedlessly entered into.

Dr. Paul’s account is rich in anecdotes, including my favorite about his puzzled and somewhat irritable reaction when people come up to him and “thank him for his service.” He also notes the ignorance of many in Congress and the White House regarding recent history and the ability of neoconservatives to exploit that, up to and including the role of the gaggle of neocon “chickenhawks” surrounding George W. Bush in using 9/11 as a “Pearl Harbor event” to declare war on Muslim regimes in the Middle East. Dr. Paul also makes many of the obvious points, for example observing that Americans are less secure now than when the “global war on terror” started. He notes that executing people randomly by drone deliberately depersonalizes the process of killing, making it more palatable to a disengaged American public but leaving a legacy of hatred in its wake among the families of the victims.

And war produces nothing positive. Carried out using borrowed money, war, as Dwight Eisenhower noted, is a waste of national resources that may lead to bankruptcy and ruin. It is also what should be a last option in international affairs unfortunately transformed into a first recourse for lazy politicians. It has killed tens of thousands Americans in our own lifetime for no good reason whatsoever and as well as millions of foreigners. It has led to abuses of our constitutional order, and created a national security state that is both lawless and reckless in its behavior, both at home and abroad. It has involved the United States in armed conflict in places that few Americans would be able to find on a map and it has made our country the most hated on earth.

Along the way, Dr. Paul also makes some shrewd observations about the dynamics of the warfare state. He is particularly critical of the way organized religion has gone along with the game, deferring to Caesar and seeking not to rock the boat even when the government is bent on policies that are hardly in sync with what most would regard as Christian doctrine. Indeed, I would go beyond that to note that some believers best described as “Armageddonites” have been among the leading enthusiasts for America the warlike, vociferously supporting regime change and destruction of Muslim governments and peoples.

There are some parts of the book that I would question. I am not a Libertarian and to be honest I find that many who define themselves by that label are sometimes lacking in any sense of community. Given that attribute, it is not surprising that they would oppose paying taxes and supporting wars or serving in uniform, which is of course a good thing, and it is where they and I see eye to eye, but while I desire much smaller and weaker government I do not share their disdain for government per se. In the area of what constitutes a reasonable defense establishment I believe that Washington must retain sufficient military capability to defend our borders as well as to deter Russia, which is the only world power that can literally destroy the U.S.

I do not agree with Dr. Paul’s rejection of trust fund based government programs like Medicare and Social Security, possibly because I am a current beneficiary of both. His recommendation that each American accept “responsibility to care for oneself and one’s family instead of relying on government or private theft” might appear admirable but it is clearly unworkable in practice as most people will kick the can down the road and not make hard choices. Many working class and even middle class Americans can no longer afford to save for retirement or medical expenses. Imagine what would have happened during the crash of 2008 if Americans had invested their Social Security accounts in equities.

Also, as a foreign policy “realist” I do believe that America has global interests that should normally be protected through diplomacy and the exercise of soft power and would disagree with Dr. Paul’s observation that realism automatically leads to intervention. If anything, the past fifteen years should have taught most realists that intervention is no option at all.

Some of Dr. Paul’s observations are based on his profound understanding of Austrian economics. His arguments for sound currency and against sanctions as a political tool are rock solid. Personally, I am an economic nitwit, my sole exposure consisting of taking a course with Milton Friedman in 1966 which I eventually dropped when it became clear to me that I had no idea what he was talking about. But that is not to say I have not observed an often faltering economy over the past forty years and it has not been pretty. Dr. Paul’s book cites his support of free trade and free movement of labor as part of his liberty agenda. He also indicates his belief that self-correcting market forces and the “marketplace” should often be the ultimate determinant in how we judge whether something is working properly or not.

I am not on that page. As an American nationalist who believes that the major function of our government is to do what is best for the people it governs, I cannot agree with an internationalism or globalism that both accepts and depends on transnational market forces independent of local restraining mechanisms. Why? Because unless I am missing something, which is quite possible, the marketplace is profit driven which means that only a fine line separates it from predatory capitalism. It will accommodate for bottom line reasons loss of jobs, devastation of the environment and abominable practices like factory farming.

Free trade, for example, mandates that all nations remove obstacles to buying and selling which in theory enables those who produce the best product at the best price to succeed. It allegedly works based on “comparative advantage” which assumes that everyone has something that they can produce on a competitive enough basis to survive in the marketplace. So everyone allegedly benefits but at a cost of doing away with regulation, unions and other protection for the workforce. And what happens if you as a country are no longer competitive in many high value added enterprises because there are plenty of $1 a day folks waiting to step into your shoes? Or a country with a potential start up industry that decides not to go that route because it will be seriously undercut by competitors? And free trade is often a misnomer as goods are frequently dumped into the U.S. market at below cost to drive American competitors out of business. In practice that kind of freedom can be devastating for those on the receiving end and can be seen in town after town in the rust belt. While freer trade might indeed produce a greater volume of economic activity that could in theory benefit everyone it can also be a zero sum game with very definite winners and losers.

To cite just one example of the dark side, nineteenth century England had no government regulation of its industry and free trade with its colony India. Its manufacturers were able to produce machine made cotton cloth in Manchester much more cheaply that the village weavers were able to do, destroying that industry and devastating the local economy. People starved. And the children working long shifts in the “dark satanic mills” of Manchester did not benefit greatly from the transaction even if the mill owners did. Free trade (or actually managed trade) introduced by NAFTA and the offshoring of production for many large U.S. corporations has been in my opinion marginally beneficial for consumers but disastrous for the American worker.

Far worse would be an open borders free market in labor, which would bring the uneducated and unassimilable to our shores in droves. Although these immigrants would keep industrial and other wages low they would undoubtedly generate significant social costs, mostly borne by state and local taxpayers. Dr. Paul observes that it is better for the American worker to take a substantial wage cut and still have a job than it is to be unemployed, a comment to which I give a large raspberry having myself been brought up in a New Jersey factory town that was gutted by offshoring of jobs and even whole industries to avoid environmental regulation. I might churlishly suggest that all medical doctors show the way by taking a fifty per cent cut in their salaries, but they are of course protected by the intensive lobbying of their own “special interest group” (which Dr. Paul notes).

And then there is the issue of guns. In his book Dr. Paul states that unrestricted ownership of weapons “stop[s] domestic tyranny from developing.” I am skeptical of such claims because I see no evidence that an armed public has in any way inhibited the over the top policies embraced by Washington during the past fifteen years. Indeed, gun owners might well be disproportionately supportive of the national security state. Owning personal weapons is a constitutional right but believing that it is a check on government abuses in contemporary America is a bit of a stretch and I will leave it up to the reader to decide how he or she views the issue.

Finally, there is the viability of the liberty revolution itself, that it is “AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME,” which is the final uppercase message in the book. Dr. Paul insists that change is inevitable because more and more people are learning about freedom, will eventually philosophically turn against the status quo and will engage in rejectionism and civil disobedience to get their message across.

I see it somewhat differently. I think “Liberty” is an abstraction that few can grasp and obsessing over it as a defining label is distracting. Change may indeed be coming but it has little to do with demands for freedom or the ability of the American public to learn anything beyond the modalities of instant gratification. It has a lot to do with government that is very visibly corrupt at all levels, that lies all the time and that is drowning in a sea of debt. And the wars are not only killing us, they are also making us poor. Dr. Paul does indeed deliver on all those points as well as observing that our unsustainable debt will someday soon bankrupt us. When that happens and Americans wake up one morning to find themselves broke and hopeless it will finally be time to throw the bums out. Many will even figure out that there is a connection between the warfare state funded on borrowed money and the bottom dropping out of the economy. That is when the last American soldiers will come home from Afghanistan and the troubadours will sing “Ain’t gonna study war no more.”

 
Hide 223 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “American Imperialism” isn’t of purely American origin, in the sense that it was a standalone phenomenon birthed in America. It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire, since America (and all the other Five Eyes allies, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) were founded and claimed on the authority of the then-homeland Mother Country’s imperial mandate.

    This does help to understand where the seemingly self-evident imperial policies of Manifest Destiny, world leadership and Full Spectrum Dominance originate. They are not either fully home grown or nonexistent as we might prefer. It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs. As expressed in the title of that dual citizenship imperialist and ally to whom America came to the rescue of based on kinship, Winston Churchill: “The History of the English Speaking Peoples.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire... (emphasis added)
     
    Speaking of evolution, I once posted the following comment in response to an article Justin Raimondo wrote for Antiear.com. It received a score of -4 points. Curious to see the response it gets at UR:

    With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, the goal of peace will never be achieved until and unless the goal of world hegemony is repudiated! If Darwin is right about the dominant evolutionary force being natural selection and it all comes down to the survival of the fittest, is it realistic to expect any U.S. administration to shut down the bases and the defense contractors' mfg plants located in all 50 states, employing a big chunk of the American labour force?

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven't yet seen such a convincing case being made!
     
    , @SolontoCroesus

    It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs.
     
    One understands that "in the DNA" is used metaphorically but its biological basis makes it offensive, and in other ways it is a low-information concept. It does not explain what information is passed on in "DNA" and how that is accomplished.

    I submit that it is more helpful to explore the myth systems that unite various cultures. The USA and the British share a grounding in evangelically-based Abrahamism -- beliefs in a peculiar, de-spiritualized understanding of the stories from the Hebrew scriptures. This common bond is shared with zionists, obviously.

    The Mediterranean interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures/myths have been differentiated by their merger with and processing through the Graeco-Roman myth and political systems.

    In turn, the Graeco-Roman version of the Abrahamic myths are reinterpreted in the Byzantine Catholic version that merged into the Mesopotamian-origin myths the folk tales of the Rus and Slavic people.

    As is frequently the case, the desacralized evangelical Abrahamic mythos can be more readily understood by studying it in comparison to the Zoroastrian basis of the Iranian mythos. In addition to the specifically religious liturgy of Zoroastrianism, the mythos is communicated among Iranians through their national spic, The Shahnameh. Zoroaster is pre-Abrahamic; ethical notions noted in the Hebrew and Christian mythos originated in Zoroastrianism and are communicated in Old Testament books as well as the New Testament.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1019096
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I wonder if anyone has done the calculations which might show that the US could go on affording its wars if it cut the cost of healthcare to Japanese levels, cut the cost of its world championship incarcerations by deciding that pretty well the only drug offence was to disable oneself from decent taxpaying citizenship by the use of drugs and raised the tax revenue which would flow from taxes on gasoline at European levels.

    I do appreciate while penning this utopian note that keeping the cost of gasoline down is one of government’s few simple nods to democratic preferences. The most diverse societies give evidence in favour of that last observation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    FYI:
    It varies from state to state, but in tax happy California taxes are ca. 72 cents on each gallon of gas, and they now want to raise it, oil company profits on a gallon of gas are ca. 5 cents.

    Big Who?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    "American Imperialism" isn’t of purely American origin, in the sense that it was a standalone phenomenon birthed in America. It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire, since America (and all the other Five Eyes allies, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) were founded and claimed on the authority of the then-homeland Mother Country’s imperial mandate.

    This does help to understand where the seemingly self-evident imperial policies of Manifest Destiny, world leadership and Full Spectrum Dominance originate. They are not either fully home grown or nonexistent as we might prefer. It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs. As expressed in the title of that dual citizenship imperialist and ally to whom America came to the rescue of based on kinship, Winston Churchill: “The History of the English Speaking Peoples.”

    It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire… (emphasis added)

    Speaking of evolution, I once posted the following comment in response to an article Justin Raimondo wrote for Antiear.com. It received a score of -4 points. Curious to see the response it gets at UR:

    With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, the goal of peace will never be achieved until and unless the goal of world hegemony is repudiated! If Darwin is right about the dominant evolutionary force being natural selection and it all comes down to the survival of the fittest, is it realistic to expect any U.S. administration to shut down the bases and the defense contractors’ mfg plants located in all 50 states, employing a big chunk of the American labour force?

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You "haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made"!?

    The US won the Cold War against Soviet Union and what did it do? It expanded all the way to the Russian border and started a war in the Russian front-yard, Ukraine. Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?

    Let me tell you what the rest of the World really thinks: The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity.

    I wish I have seen your post at Antiwar, I would have given it -100.

    By losing the Cold War and falling apart, the Soviet Union actually proved who was the villain all along - the US military-industrial-financial elite which cannot exist without permanent warfare.

    , @Seamus Padraig

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony.
     
    By setting up such a false dichotomy, you are well on your way to neocon-ville. There's only "world peace" or "world hegemony" you say? Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us. You don't believe me? Well, look at what China and Russia are doing to prevent the US from dominating their hemisphere: they're banding together to defend Eurasia.

    No empire in history has ever dominated the entire world; the longer-lasting ones never even bothered to try.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. geokat62 says:

    I have long been a great admirer of Dr. Paul and was, full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran for the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008.

    Phil, I wasn’t aware you were part of RP’s foreign policy team. Given the unique vantage point this afforded you, perhaps you’d be willing to share your views on how RP viewed matters related to the “Pearl Harbor Event”:

    … the role of the gaggle of neocon “chickenhawks” surrounding George W. Bush in using 9/11 as a “Pearl Harbor event” to declare war on Muslim regimes in the Middle East.

    Not sure you’re aware, but there is a heated debate taking place in regards to the article A Tale of Two World Orders here at UR about whether the attacks on 9/11 were government manufactured or something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy.

    Someone managed to produce this quote about RP’s views that seem to suggest he thinks 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy:

    … but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries…

    Perhaps you wouldn’t mind shedding some light on this matter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.
    , @Karl
    >>> or something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy



    "I cheated on my husband, but it's ==his== fault"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @geokat62

    I have long been a great admirer of Dr. Paul and was, full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran for the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008.
     
    Phil, I wasn't aware you were part of RP's foreign policy team. Given the unique vantage point this afforded you, perhaps you'd be willing to share your views on how RP viewed matters related to the "Pearl Harbor Event":

    ... the role of the gaggle of neocon “chickenhawks” surrounding George W. Bush in using 9/11 as a “Pearl Harbor event” to declare war on Muslim regimes in the Middle East.
     
    Not sure you're aware, but there is a heated debate taking place in regards to the article A Tale of Two World Orders here at UR about whether the attacks on 9/11 were government manufactured or something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy.

    Someone managed to produce this quote about RP's views that seem to suggest he thinks 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy:

    … but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries...
     
    Perhaps you wouldn't mind shedding some light on this matter?

    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America’s interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The “innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals” narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Thanks, Phil... appreciate your sharing your valued insights with us.
    , @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this...

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    And if you don't believe that, you're a "conspiracy theorist"
    , @Fran Macadam
    We shouldn't forget Rahm Emanuel's advice to never let the opportunity of a crisis go by, without turning the use of it towards fulfilling political goals you previously could not. Who says the duopoly isn't bipartisan, when the interests of the donorists who are behind both are at stake?
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence.
     
    "Blowback", eh?

    What I can't quite fathom about the "blowback" explanation is why Dr. Paul (or anybody else) would find it that convincing. Not to say that it is impossible, mind you, but let's just consider certain key facts:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?

    The United States could carpet bomb villagers throughout Southeast Asia, killing millions of innocents, destroying entire villages, like in the My Lai incident, and I cannot recall a single "blowback" terrorism incident, where somebody who lost his entire family, entire village, decided to blow up some Americans in California, say, to get even. Never happened. I think not even once. There are large Vietnamese populations and all it would have taken was one embittered person, but no... nothing.

    Similar comment can be made about Nicaragua contras and Salvadoran junta. Brutal stuff and no blowback terrorism on American soil despite a large population of refugees from those countries and, again, all it would take is one person with a grudge to do a suicide bombing.

    So, if there is no history of this happening previously, why is the entire American "intelligentsia" so invested in this "blowback" terrorism explanation of 9/11? To me, frankly, "blowback" terrorism seems a lot like lone nuts showing up out of the blue and shooting people, a story line we should immediately be very suspicious of.

    But anyway... cutting to the chase... I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in "blowback". I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It's the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn't mean that he doesn't know it.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible.
     
    That's interesting. Would you mind saying which "elements" are the ones you find "highly plausible"?

    Yet you say you are agnostic, unsure... So, does that mean that while are there elements in the truther narrative you find "highly plausible", there are elements in the official story that you also find highly plausible and thus, you cannot decide which narrative is true?

    If so, what are the elements in the official U.S. government story that you find "highly plausible"?

    , @Cloak And Dagger

    Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The “innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals” narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.
     
    Your cautious choice of words and phrasing is not lost on me. One of the significant accomplishments of the intelligence/military community (of which you were a part) has been the creation of the label "conspiracy theorist" as one of the most effective bludgeons against reputable people, putting the fear of the devil into their hearts and preventing them from being honest and forthright about their opinions. So, I am not surprised that you would hesitate to voice your opinion on the subject.

    It is perfectly reasonable for us to speculate on the motives and actions of foreign nations, even in the absence of sufficient data (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, ,…), but it is verboten to question the official narrative without being labelled a "conspiracy theorist" - the lowest of the low, relegated to the fringes of society and depicted with tin foil hats. Yet, the shallowest of studies of history shows that many such "conspiracy theories" are now accepted as facts. It is a property of these events that the evidence that would reveal them to be facts are controlled by the government, and it takes years for them to leak out if ever.

    The Gulf of Tonkin incident turned out to be true. The deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty turned out to be true. The CIA's "Heart Attack Gun" turned out to be true. Operation Mockingbird turned out to be true. The FBI poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition turned out to be true. Cancer-Causing polio Vaccines in the 1960s turned out to be true. The military attempt to develop a "gay bomb" in 1994 turned out to be true.

    http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/

    The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment turned out to be true. Project MK-ULTRA turned out to be true. Operation Paperclip - the secret intelligence program that brought Nazi scientists to America to help develop chemical weapons for the US, including LSD, turned out to be true. The "Nayirah testimony" - the girl claimed Iraqi soldiers had removed babies from incubators and left them to die, turned out to be manufactured casus belli. Operation Northwoods to create fake attacks in America, killing American citizens by our government, designed to be blamed on Cuba, to drum up support for war, turned out to be true.

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/seven-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-which-turned-out-to-be-true--xJeose5tlZ

    CIA Drug Trafficking during the 1980s turned out to be true. COINTELPRO by the FBI turned out to be true. Operation Snow White's unprecedented infiltration of the US government by the Church of Scientology turned out to be true. NSA spying on US citizens turned out to be true. Globalist corporatocracy turned out to be true, leading to the TISA and the TPP.

    http://theantimedia.org/10-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

    I could go on and on about the Manhattan Project, Watergate, etc., etc. - the list is very long and getting longer. If you are interested, here is a sample:

    http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

    The point of all of this is to say that far from being insane, conspiracy theorists may well represent the sane among us who do not unquestioningly accept the latest pile of slop from the mass media. These are the people who actually spend time, energy, and critical thinking, in determining the truth, and then educating their fellow citizens about it. This used to be the definition of liberty and what it meant to have an American democracy - a vigilant citizenry.

    I, for one, refuse to let the government get away with it. Shout it from the roof tops: 9/11 was a false-flag operation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. geokat62 says:
    @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Thanks, Phil… appreciate your sharing your valued insights with us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. alexander says:

    Excellent article Mr Giraldi,

    I will most certainly take a look at Mr Paul’s new book !

    I agree with you on our national defense, I think most Americans are willing to pay a premium to have the most advanced military on the planet, I sure am.

    What is of concern, and should be to most of us, especially after the obscene amount of debt we have created over the last thirteen years, accrued primarily from our never ending wars in the middle east for Israel,…

    .Is the “cost to profit” ratios of many of the military systems we employ !

    We do not really know what they are….there is little, if no, accountability…and all the mechanisms that drive efficiency in our spending are corrupted, non functional, or deliberately Opaque !

    Let me create an example and see if you agree on its conclusion :

    The US government agrees to purchase one hundred “predator drones” from Elbit Systems over the next three years….
    . the ACTUAL cost for Elbit Systems to manufacture ONE DRONE is one million dollars….

    Yet the bill to the American taxpayer per drone..is TEN MILLION dollars .

    The contract with Elbit Systems generates one billion in revenue and a whopping NINE HUNDRED MILLION IN PROFIT for the Israeli company !

    We, on the other hand, spend a billion and only ACTUALLY receive a 10th(100 million) of that billion in goods .

    What this translates to for the American People is a 10 percent “efficiency rate” in our military preparedness within our military spending .

    If these Ratios of “cost to profits “were translated throughout ALL our military spending…our 6oo Billion per year WAR CHEST would yield only 60 billion dollars worth of “preparedness” for the taxpayer….and 540 billion in PURE PROFIT for the war profiteers .

    Considering the fact , that nobody is supposed to make a profit from war, AT ALL , ratios of this nature are OUTRAGEOUS !

    Elbit Systems’ ” cost to profit” ratios are actually a TERRORIST ASSAULT on our Nations Balance Sheet and all future generations of Americans who have to pay for it .

    UNCONSCIONABLE !! !

    One of the ways we can REFORM the system, if anyone should be “allowed “to profit from war AT ALL,is to demand AT LEAST a 90% efficiency rate in our military spending .

    What that would mean is that for every billion we spend we receive NO LESS that 900 million in goods and services .

    That way we know we are getting the most “Bang for our Buck.!”

    WE DEMAND, through our legislature a MANDATORY 90% “efficiency rate” on all military expenses….and make it retroactive too .

    Anyone who attempts to fudge the numbers AT ALL is declared a Terrorist and goes right to Guantanamo Bay!

    there should be No MERCY for fraud , at all….

    And No MERCY for War Fraud Profiteers !

    Having the finest military on the planet, means having the most efficient, cost effective one too !

    I guess its what you would call “Running a tight ship !”

    It is long overdue !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Having the finest military on the planet, means having the most efficient, cost effective one too !"

    Finest military on the Planet?

    You surely can't be referring to the bunch of useless tossers who, on half a trillion dollars a year can't defend their own headquarters against $12 worth of box-cutters?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Kiza says:
    @geokat62

    It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire... (emphasis added)
     
    Speaking of evolution, I once posted the following comment in response to an article Justin Raimondo wrote for Antiear.com. It received a score of -4 points. Curious to see the response it gets at UR:

    With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, the goal of peace will never be achieved until and unless the goal of world hegemony is repudiated! If Darwin is right about the dominant evolutionary force being natural selection and it all comes down to the survival of the fittest, is it realistic to expect any U.S. administration to shut down the bases and the defense contractors' mfg plants located in all 50 states, employing a big chunk of the American labour force?

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven't yet seen such a convincing case being made!
     

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?

    The US won the Cold War against Soviet Union and what did it do? It expanded all the way to the Russian border and started a war in the Russian front-yard, Ukraine. Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?

    Let me tell you what the rest of the World really thinks: The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity.

    I wish I have seen your post at Antiwar, I would have given it -100.

    By losing the Cold War and falling apart, the Soviet Union actually proved who was the villain all along – the US military-industrial-financial elite which cannot exist without permanent warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?
     
    You made two assertions without any substantiation, not a very convincing way to begin a rebuttal!

    Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?
     
    The purpose of my provocative comment was to generate discussion about whether world peace is truly achievable or whether the competition among nations locks us into the inescapable logic of either you rule or you will be ruled. So, in this sense, I do not consider the U.S. as being exceptional, whatsoever. I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether "might makes right" is, and always will be, the ultimate driver. Based on the historical track record (both the League of Nations and the United Nations), I don't believe we have good reason to be optimistic.
    , @Bill Jones
    "The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity."

    I disagree. The levels of fear and cowardice are unique here too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Fran Macadam
    "American Imperialism" isn’t of purely American origin, in the sense that it was a standalone phenomenon birthed in America. It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire, since America (and all the other Five Eyes allies, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) were founded and claimed on the authority of the then-homeland Mother Country’s imperial mandate.

    This does help to understand where the seemingly self-evident imperial policies of Manifest Destiny, world leadership and Full Spectrum Dominance originate. They are not either fully home grown or nonexistent as we might prefer. It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs. As expressed in the title of that dual citizenship imperialist and ally to whom America came to the rescue of based on kinship, Winston Churchill: “The History of the English Speaking Peoples.”

    It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs.

    One understands that “in the DNA” is used metaphorically but its biological basis makes it offensive, and in other ways it is a low-information concept. It does not explain what information is passed on in “DNA” and how that is accomplished.

    I submit that it is more helpful to explore the myth systems that unite various cultures. The USA and the British share a grounding in evangelically-based Abrahamism — beliefs in a peculiar, de-spiritualized understanding of the stories from the Hebrew scriptures. This common bond is shared with zionists, obviously.

    The Mediterranean interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures/myths have been differentiated by their merger with and processing through the Graeco-Roman myth and political systems.

    In turn, the Graeco-Roman version of the Abrahamic myths are reinterpreted in the Byzantine Catholic version that merged into the Mesopotamian-origin myths the folk tales of the Rus and Slavic people.

    As is frequently the case, the desacralized evangelical Abrahamic mythos can be more readily understood by studying it in comparison to the Zoroastrian basis of the Iranian mythos. In addition to the specifically religious liturgy of Zoroastrianism, the mythos is communicated among Iranians through their national spic, The Shahnameh. Zoroaster is pre-Abrahamic; ethical notions noted in the Hebrew and Christian mythos originated in Zoroastrianism and are communicated in Old Testament books as well as the New Testament.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Whatever. The sun still doesn't set on it. And whatever it's for, it's not about spreading the influence of the tenets of religion, but Anglo economic hegemony. Evangelicals are outre and heretical. This is Jenneration XXX.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. iffen says:

    full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran

    I always wondered why he didn’t do any better politically than he did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Albertson
    The reason is both parties and virtually all politicians are in agreement that, to quote the Great President, George W. notWashington, "The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper." That only Ron Paul believes it to be the Law, means he had to be ignored, then ridiculed, then cheated. Their only mistake, almost fatal, was to let him in the "debates", where he kicked everyones' asses. Their panicked and ham-handed treatment of him and his delegates in the primary was quite telling, plus quite stupid since he would have easily beaten Hillary or Barack. We could have had a president Paul, now will be lucky to get a Trump. Why we need a license to drive or braid hair, but anyone with pulse can vote, remains a mystery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. geokat62 says:
    @Kiza
    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You "haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made"!?

    The US won the Cold War against Soviet Union and what did it do? It expanded all the way to the Russian border and started a war in the Russian front-yard, Ukraine. Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?

    Let me tell you what the rest of the World really thinks: The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity.

    I wish I have seen your post at Antiwar, I would have given it -100.

    By losing the Cold War and falling apart, the Soviet Union actually proved who was the villain all along - the US military-industrial-financial elite which cannot exist without permanent warfare.

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?

    You made two assertions without any substantiation, not a very convincing way to begin a rebuttal!

    Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?

    The purpose of my provocative comment was to generate discussion about whether world peace is truly achievable or whether the competition among nations locks us into the inescapable logic of either you rule or you will be ruled. So, in this sense, I do not consider the U.S. as being exceptional, whatsoever. I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether “might makes right” is, and always will be, the ultimate driver. Based on the historical track record (both the League of Nations and the United Nations), I don’t believe we have good reason to be optimistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether “might makes right” is, and always will be, the ultimate driver.
     
    I was applying self-restraint, resisting commentary, but this in a nutshell, is precisely what I believe the long arch of received human history tells us. Imho this is spot on. S2C perhaps has a point in that Zoroaster was the first lawyer/philosopher whose teachings brought widespread peace for a longish period of time. Both ancient Persian and Vedic scripts and myths tell very similar tales of Asuras and Devas, mixing it up, expanding their territories engaging in active statecraft, charting 5 year plans for "world" domination etc. Better recorded Chinese and European history that followed, show similar patterns.

    I am not a trained historian, but @geokat, the above notion is spot on, even though it leaves one to rely on something akin to fatalism.

    Overall, I say without qualifications, this article from Dr. Giraldi is superb, and clearly differentiates his own economic views from naive libertarianism.

    , @Kiza
    Ok, so you never said that Americans are exceptional people, it was I who extended it into exceptionalism. But I did this exactly because your comment on Antiwar was so uniquely mindless and thus exceptional. I will definitely keep your words for my most Fox-News grade stupid comment of the week:
    "What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!"

    I will do this because even after I explained to you how much pure self-projection there was in your comment, you persisted. One can lead a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. Would there ever be a chance that your brain could comprehend that other nations may want to trade instead of becoming hegemons of the US kind? I just keep laughing.

    This other character here is happy to pay a premium for the most powerful military in the World but is unhappy that the military-industrial complex may be ripping him off. I am laughing my head off. Of all the f'ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Here are two small and quick pieces of today's news from your f'ed up land:
    1) Your general Wesley Clark suggested on MSNBC, to institute internment camps for those who do not think the way the Government likes: https://youtu.be/eaPwqokBn9M
    2) Your President, who not only made a pledge to protect the US Constitution but is also a leading authority on it (professor), wants to introduce a law to take the guns away from illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and felons. This is clearly against the Second Amendment (except for illegal immigrants).

    I am laughing and laughing and laughing.

    , @Fran Macadam
    You should realize, though, that it means the people of this country, have to be ruled in just the same way, abolishing democratic accountability, by the elites who have decided on empire for themselves. No benefit of real economic or political liberty accrues to the ruled, internal or external. Particularly, the internally ruled must be encouraged to conflate libertinism with liberty, substituting slavery to appetites for the responsibility being a self-governing community requires.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this…

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

    …Meanwhile down in Washington…

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…

    …all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…

    …Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana…

    …Further south in Florida…

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…

    …In New York…

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…

    And if you don’t believe that, you’re a “conspiracy theorist”

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Brilliant, funny and quite thought-provoking, Thanks for posting that.
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    That is as accurate and humorous a summary as any I have read about the official 9/11 "conspiracy theory".

    Of course, there is a litany of side stories that also took place but were disappeared from public awareness. These include the Israeli moving company who suddenly shut down their offices and disappeared back to Israel, the dancing Israelis who claimed to be "documenting" the event, the fall of WTC-7 in free fall into its footprint, without having been hit by an airplane, the BBC's pre-announcement of the fall of WTC-7 even while it was still standing…

    Being a private pilot myself, I can tell you that even after thousands of hours of flight experience, I could neither hit those twin towers at the speed and bank that was demonstrated, nor pull off the Pentagon hit while overcoming "ground effect" at that speed. The twin towers had to have been hit by radio-controlled planes, and the Pentagon hit was most likely a missile.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Kiza
    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You "haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made"!?

    The US won the Cold War against Soviet Union and what did it do? It expanded all the way to the Russian border and started a war in the Russian front-yard, Ukraine. Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?

    Let me tell you what the rest of the World really thinks: The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity.

    I wish I have seen your post at Antiwar, I would have given it -100.

    By losing the Cold War and falling apart, the Soviet Union actually proved who was the villain all along - the US military-industrial-financial elite which cannot exist without permanent warfare.

    “The only two things that the US is exceptional at are the meanness and the stupidity.”

    I disagree. The levels of fear and cowardice are unique here too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @alexander
    Excellent article Mr Giraldi,

    I will most certainly take a look at Mr Paul's new book !


    I agree with you on our national defense, I think most Americans are willing to pay a premium to have the most advanced military on the planet, I sure am.

    What is of concern, and should be to most of us, especially after the obscene amount of debt we have created over the last thirteen years, accrued primarily from our never ending wars in the middle east for Israel,...

    .Is the "cost to profit" ratios of many of the military systems we employ !

    We do not really know what they are....there is little, if no, accountability...and all the mechanisms that drive efficiency in our spending are corrupted, non functional, or deliberately Opaque !

    Let me create an example and see if you agree on its conclusion :

    The US government agrees to purchase one hundred "predator drones" from Elbit Systems over the next three years....
    . the ACTUAL cost for Elbit Systems to manufacture ONE DRONE is one million dollars....

    Yet the bill to the American taxpayer per drone..is TEN MILLION dollars .

    The contract with Elbit Systems generates one billion in revenue and a whopping NINE HUNDRED MILLION IN PROFIT for the Israeli company !

    We, on the other hand, spend a billion and only ACTUALLY receive a 10th(100 million) of that billion in goods .

    What this translates to for the American People is a 10 percent "efficiency rate" in our military preparedness within our military spending .

    If these Ratios of "cost to profits "were translated throughout ALL our military spending...our 6oo Billion per year WAR CHEST would yield only 60 billion dollars worth of "preparedness" for the taxpayer....and 540 billion in PURE PROFIT for the war profiteers .

    Considering the fact , that nobody is supposed to make a profit from war, AT ALL , ratios of this nature are OUTRAGEOUS !

    Elbit Systems' " cost to profit" ratios are actually a TERRORIST ASSAULT on our Nations Balance Sheet and all future generations of Americans who have to pay for it .

    UNCONSCIONABLE !! !

    One of the ways we can REFORM the system, if anyone should be "allowed "to profit from war AT ALL,is to demand AT LEAST a 90% efficiency rate in our military spending .

    What that would mean is that for every billion we spend we receive NO LESS that 900 million in goods and services .

    That way we know we are getting the most "Bang for our Buck.!"

    WE DEMAND, through our legislature a MANDATORY 90% "efficiency rate" on all military expenses....and make it retroactive too .

    Anyone who attempts to fudge the numbers AT ALL is declared a Terrorist and goes right to Guantanamo Bay!

    there should be No MERCY for fraud , at all....

    And No MERCY for War Fraud Profiteers !


    Having the finest military on the planet, means having the most efficient, cost effective one too !

    I guess its what you would call "Running a tight ship !"

    It is long overdue !

    “Having the finest military on the planet, means having the most efficient, cost effective one too !”

    Finest military on the Planet?

    You surely can’t be referring to the bunch of useless tossers who, on half a trillion dollars a year can’t defend their own headquarters against $12 worth of box-cutters?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. “AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME,” …. . Dr. Paul insists that change is inevitable because more and more people are learning about freedom …

    The problem is that more and more people are learning about “freedom” from the media which is feeding them a diet consisting of revelations about the private lives of movie stars, pop stars and sports personalities – mostly of it scandalous – and encouraging blatant self-indulgence; while in the background the war-drums are incessantly beating out the message, overtly and subliminally: “IRAN = bad bad bad .. PUTIN = bad bad bad … MUSLIMS = bad bad bad …”
    Although the opinion polls themselves are highly suspect, they report that belief in these messages is deeply embedded in the minds of a majority.

    Sadly I think PG is right – realization of the truth can only come after the whole edifice has toppled. I do however take encouragement from the fact that, despite the virtually 100% hostile media, Donald Trump is leading in the opinion polls – Trump for president is pretty inconceivable and would likely be a disaster but, just possibly, less disastrous than having Hillary there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?
     
    You made two assertions without any substantiation, not a very convincing way to begin a rebuttal!

    Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?
     
    The purpose of my provocative comment was to generate discussion about whether world peace is truly achievable or whether the competition among nations locks us into the inescapable logic of either you rule or you will be ruled. So, in this sense, I do not consider the U.S. as being exceptional, whatsoever. I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether "might makes right" is, and always will be, the ultimate driver. Based on the historical track record (both the League of Nations and the United Nations), I don't believe we have good reason to be optimistic.

    I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether “might makes right” is, and always will be, the ultimate driver.

    I was applying self-restraint, resisting commentary, but this in a nutshell, is precisely what I believe the long arch of received human history tells us. Imho this is spot on. S2C perhaps has a point in that Zoroaster was the first lawyer/philosopher whose teachings brought widespread peace for a longish period of time. Both ancient Persian and Vedic scripts and myths tell very similar tales of Asuras and Devas, mixing it up, expanding their territories engaging in active statecraft, charting 5 year plans for “world” domination etc. Better recorded Chinese and European history that followed, show similar patterns.

    I am not a trained historian, but @geokat, the above notion is spot on, even though it leaves one to rely on something akin to fatalism.

    Overall, I say without qualifications, this article from Dr. Giraldi is superb, and clearly differentiates his own economic views from naive libertarianism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Kiza says:
    @geokat62

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?
     
    You made two assertions without any substantiation, not a very convincing way to begin a rebuttal!

    Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?
     
    The purpose of my provocative comment was to generate discussion about whether world peace is truly achievable or whether the competition among nations locks us into the inescapable logic of either you rule or you will be ruled. So, in this sense, I do not consider the U.S. as being exceptional, whatsoever. I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether "might makes right" is, and always will be, the ultimate driver. Based on the historical track record (both the League of Nations and the United Nations), I don't believe we have good reason to be optimistic.

    Ok, so you never said that Americans are exceptional people, it was I who extended it into exceptionalism. But I did this exactly because your comment on Antiwar was so uniquely mindless and thus exceptional. I will definitely keep your words for my most Fox-News grade stupid comment of the week:
    “What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!”

    I will do this because even after I explained to you how much pure self-projection there was in your comment, you persisted. One can lead a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. Would there ever be a chance that your brain could comprehend that other nations may want to trade instead of becoming hegemons of the US kind? I just keep laughing.

    This other character here is happy to pay a premium for the most powerful military in the World but is unhappy that the military-industrial complex may be ripping him off. I am laughing my head off. Of all the f’ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Here are two small and quick pieces of today’s news from your f’ed up land:
    1) Your general Wesley Clark suggested on MSNBC, to institute internment camps for those who do not think the way the Government likes: https://youtu.be/eaPwqokBn9M
    2) Your President, who not only made a pledge to protect the US Constitution but is also a leading authority on it (professor), wants to introduce a law to take the guns away from illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and felons. This is clearly against the Second Amendment (except for illegal immigrants).

    I am laughing and laughing and laughing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Based on your two comments, you clearly have nothing of substance to add to this discussion... so may I suggest you move on to something that is of more interest to you.
    , @anonymous
    Laughing and laughing and laughing…. Haha!

    You are obviously very wise…. and a great sense of humour too!

    You are just wonderful all around.
    , @Rurik

    Of all the f’ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.
     
    Would your country countenance a blog of this type? Where us American's are trying to hold our government's feet to the fire for its complicity in such things as 911- or for waging (or participating in) illegal wars of aggression against innocent countries?

    Does your country allow you to openly question Israel's role in 911?

    To openly question even the holy Holocaust?!

    America today is suffering under a demonic possession it's true. But the people are not demonic, just simple, salt of the earth types who can be used for good or evil depending on the regime we suffer under. We're the same people who created the sublime and singular Declaration of Independence. The same people who waged a horrific war on ourselves to end slavery.

    We have our historical warts to be sure, just like everyone else. But the American people, for all their gullibility and naiveté are not rotten by design, but our elites sure are. But then they're most likely cut from the same cloth as your elites, only sans the superpower status. What I like to ask people who criticize Americans is; what about your government? Is it too a party to the war on terror? Because if your government has or is sending arms or troops into these contrived conflicts for Israel, then your governments are just as guilty. Does that mean the people of Canada or Poland or Puerto Rico are just as "f'ed up" as Americans?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @SolontoCroesus

    It is in the DNA of a people’s history as they have inherited it, lived it and passed it on to their heirs.
     
    One understands that "in the DNA" is used metaphorically but its biological basis makes it offensive, and in other ways it is a low-information concept. It does not explain what information is passed on in "DNA" and how that is accomplished.

    I submit that it is more helpful to explore the myth systems that unite various cultures. The USA and the British share a grounding in evangelically-based Abrahamism -- beliefs in a peculiar, de-spiritualized understanding of the stories from the Hebrew scriptures. This common bond is shared with zionists, obviously.

    The Mediterranean interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures/myths have been differentiated by their merger with and processing through the Graeco-Roman myth and political systems.

    In turn, the Graeco-Roman version of the Abrahamic myths are reinterpreted in the Byzantine Catholic version that merged into the Mesopotamian-origin myths the folk tales of the Rus and Slavic people.

    As is frequently the case, the desacralized evangelical Abrahamic mythos can be more readily understood by studying it in comparison to the Zoroastrian basis of the Iranian mythos. In addition to the specifically religious liturgy of Zoroastrianism, the mythos is communicated among Iranians through their national spic, The Shahnameh. Zoroaster is pre-Abrahamic; ethical notions noted in the Hebrew and Christian mythos originated in Zoroastrianism and are communicated in Old Testament books as well as the New Testament.

    Whatever. The sun still doesn’t set on it. And whatever it’s for, it’s not about spreading the influence of the tenets of religion, but Anglo economic hegemony. Evangelicals are outre and heretical. This is Jenneration XXX.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    The tenets of religions and their undercurrents are incredibly strong, regardless of what any generation thinks," adapts" with the times, etc.

    Economic hegemony in one form or the other, was always the basis, and religion for better or worse, organised the competing sides.

    Democracy since it founding has meant rather little. (Show me a true democracy that lived for a considerable period of time).

    To put it in "modern" terms, the more democracy (larger number of indistinguishable units voting) a nation has, the greater are the odds for the "House" to win and collect and thereby extend its influence and hegemony.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
    , @Rurik

    outre and heretical.
     
    you say that like those are bad things
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @geokat62

    Is it possible that someone has to point out to you how circular and self-projective your thinking is? You “haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made”!?
     
    You made two assertions without any substantiation, not a very convincing way to begin a rebuttal!

    Are you going to claim that the rest of the World is just the same as the US (as bad) but the US is still somehow exceptional?
     
    The purpose of my provocative comment was to generate discussion about whether world peace is truly achievable or whether the competition among nations locks us into the inescapable logic of either you rule or you will be ruled. So, in this sense, I do not consider the U.S. as being exceptional, whatsoever. I feel that the U.S. like all previous empires, has simply decided it prefers to rule than be ruled. I guess fundamentally what it boils down to is whether nations can truly devolve their powers to an international body and adhere to international law or whether "might makes right" is, and always will be, the ultimate driver. Based on the historical track record (both the League of Nations and the United Nations), I don't believe we have good reason to be optimistic.

    You should realize, though, that it means the people of this country, have to be ruled in just the same way, abolishing democratic accountability, by the elites who have decided on empire for themselves. No benefit of real economic or political liberty accrues to the ruled, internal or external. Particularly, the internally ruled must be encouraged to conflate libertinism with liberty, substituting slavery to appetites for the responsibility being a self-governing community requires.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. geokat62 says:
    @Kiza
    Ok, so you never said that Americans are exceptional people, it was I who extended it into exceptionalism. But I did this exactly because your comment on Antiwar was so uniquely mindless and thus exceptional. I will definitely keep your words for my most Fox-News grade stupid comment of the week:
    "What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!"

    I will do this because even after I explained to you how much pure self-projection there was in your comment, you persisted. One can lead a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. Would there ever be a chance that your brain could comprehend that other nations may want to trade instead of becoming hegemons of the US kind? I just keep laughing.

    This other character here is happy to pay a premium for the most powerful military in the World but is unhappy that the military-industrial complex may be ripping him off. I am laughing my head off. Of all the f'ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Here are two small and quick pieces of today's news from your f'ed up land:
    1) Your general Wesley Clark suggested on MSNBC, to institute internment camps for those who do not think the way the Government likes: https://youtu.be/eaPwqokBn9M
    2) Your President, who not only made a pledge to protect the US Constitution but is also a leading authority on it (professor), wants to introduce a law to take the guns away from illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and felons. This is clearly against the Second Amendment (except for illegal immigrants).

    I am laughing and laughing and laughing.

    Based on your two comments, you clearly have nothing of substance to add to this discussion… so may I suggest you move on to something that is of more interest to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Now you are right, I am tempted to go to http://www.foxnews.com/ comments section, I may find more intelligence there than with commentators such as you here (they must expelled you form there). But no, I will stay here and just skip your brilliance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    We shouldn’t forget Rahm Emanuel’s advice to never let the opportunity of a crisis go by, without turning the use of it towards fulfilling political goals you previously could not. Who says the duopoly isn’t bipartisan, when the interests of the donorists who are behind both are at stake?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Kiza
    Ok, so you never said that Americans are exceptional people, it was I who extended it into exceptionalism. But I did this exactly because your comment on Antiwar was so uniquely mindless and thus exceptional. I will definitely keep your words for my most Fox-News grade stupid comment of the week:
    "What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!"

    I will do this because even after I explained to you how much pure self-projection there was in your comment, you persisted. One can lead a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. Would there ever be a chance that your brain could comprehend that other nations may want to trade instead of becoming hegemons of the US kind? I just keep laughing.

    This other character here is happy to pay a premium for the most powerful military in the World but is unhappy that the military-industrial complex may be ripping him off. I am laughing my head off. Of all the f'ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Here are two small and quick pieces of today's news from your f'ed up land:
    1) Your general Wesley Clark suggested on MSNBC, to institute internment camps for those who do not think the way the Government likes: https://youtu.be/eaPwqokBn9M
    2) Your President, who not only made a pledge to protect the US Constitution but is also a leading authority on it (professor), wants to introduce a law to take the guns away from illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and felons. This is clearly against the Second Amendment (except for illegal immigrants).

    I am laughing and laughing and laughing.

    Laughing and laughing and laughing…. Haha!

    You are obviously very wise…. and a great sense of humour too!

    You are just wonderful all around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I know that you are probably not interested, but I will still bother to tell you a short personal story.

    In 1993, I was a junior manager in an MNC telecommunications company which was part-owned by Bell South, one of Baby-Bells of the time. We were working in an open plan office and we had a high level manager from Bell South in our office. He was from, what I generally consider, a good part of the US, the south, maybe a state such as Arkansas (although Hillibillary is from there too). So this character opens the newspapers up, reads the front page on which Yeltsin's tanks are firing at the Russian parliament which is burning. The guy just starts laughing and telling everyone something along: "look at these Russians, they are so stupid, sending tanks onto their own parliament, that is democracy the Russian style".

    My boss, who was on the same management level as this US moron saw my face go deep red (and I am not even Russian) and started talking to me to distract me from my wish to throw this a-hole through the 19th floor window.

    I will never forget this, the US morons are like bacteria - they are everywhere. But this one thought me to laugh at the misfortune of his compatriots.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Rurik says:
    @Kiza
    Ok, so you never said that Americans are exceptional people, it was I who extended it into exceptionalism. But I did this exactly because your comment on Antiwar was so uniquely mindless and thus exceptional. I will definitely keep your words for my most Fox-News grade stupid comment of the week:
    "What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven’t yet seen such a convincing case being made!"

    I will do this because even after I explained to you how much pure self-projection there was in your comment, you persisted. One can lead a horse to the water but one cannot make it drink. Would there ever be a chance that your brain could comprehend that other nations may want to trade instead of becoming hegemons of the US kind? I just keep laughing.

    This other character here is happy to pay a premium for the most powerful military in the World but is unhappy that the military-industrial complex may be ripping him off. I am laughing my head off. Of all the f'ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Here are two small and quick pieces of today's news from your f'ed up land:
    1) Your general Wesley Clark suggested on MSNBC, to institute internment camps for those who do not think the way the Government likes: https://youtu.be/eaPwqokBn9M
    2) Your President, who not only made a pledge to protect the US Constitution but is also a leading authority on it (professor), wants to introduce a law to take the guns away from illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and felons. This is clearly against the Second Amendment (except for illegal immigrants).

    I am laughing and laughing and laughing.

    Of all the f’ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.

    Would your country countenance a blog of this type? Where us American’s are trying to hold our government’s feet to the fire for its complicity in such things as 911- or for waging (or participating in) illegal wars of aggression against innocent countries?

    Does your country allow you to openly question Israel’s role in 911?

    To openly question even the holy Holocaust?!

    America today is suffering under a demonic possession it’s true. But the people are not demonic, just simple, salt of the earth types who can be used for good or evil depending on the regime we suffer under. We’re the same people who created the sublime and singular Declaration of Independence. The same people who waged a horrific war on ourselves to end slavery.

    We have our historical warts to be sure, just like everyone else. But the American people, for all their gullibility and naiveté are not rotten by design, but our elites sure are. But then they’re most likely cut from the same cloth as your elites, only sans the superpower status. What I like to ask people who criticize Americans is; what about your government? Is it too a party to the war on terror? Because if your government has or is sending arms or troops into these contrived conflicts for Israel, then your governments are just as guilty. Does that mean the people of Canada or Poland or Puerto Rico are just as “f’ed up” as Americans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Well, in my country nobody is talking "internment camps". I am glad that no-American appears to have understood my points and just felt offended. This just means that there is little hope for you as a nation.

    Firstly, if I was like the majority of people unhappy with the so called "US benevolent hegemony" I would be doing harm to the US. Instead I am trying to help you see and understand, I am engaging in a debate with you (a rough one), although I do not have much respect for the majority of you.

    Secondly, the US is in the grip of the so called two parties, the Coca Cola party and the Pepsi Cola party. This character geocat62 criticizes "the liberals" for not proving to him that the World would not be a worse place than under the current US terror. Thus, your intellectual debate is on the level of "how hard it is to carry the White mens' burden", if the US does not rule the World, then someone much worse would. BTW, this is the justification of every capo in a concentration camp: "I torment you, but someone else in my place would do much worse, so you are lucky bastards."

    But your country is so f'ed up that not only that it is the humanity's bad luck that you have the most powerful military in the World then you are probably the least suited nation on the planet Earth to be rulling others through any kind of hegemony.

    Imagine for a moment that some other nation was interested in a global hegemony of the US kind instead of trading (China and Russia). Imagine that this hegemonic nation even wanted to rule the US. If only you would be so lucky!!!

    Your brainwashed brains could probably never comprehend why Putin is so popular. It is because Putin cleaned up the necocon mess in Russia. The US started rulling Russia for one short period of time under Yelstin and made a terrible mess of the country (the Americans just laughed at this, just as I am laughing at Americans now). So Russia somehow found Putin and Putin re-introduced the rule of law. He did not kill anyone, but he threw a few neocon connected oligarchs, such as Khodorovsky, into jail to teach others that there are limits and that Russia must come first, not the interests of their gang (and the country that their gang originates from). If you do not understand that this is exactly what your country needs, a country whose necon financial and political elite is running berserk with power, then you are beyond any hope.

    If you would only be so lucky for Putin to want to occupy US and do the same for you.

    Instead, your general Wall Street Wes is planning internment camps for those of you who do not have girlfriends. Well, you deserve it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Sam Shama says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Whatever. The sun still doesn't set on it. And whatever it's for, it's not about spreading the influence of the tenets of religion, but Anglo economic hegemony. Evangelicals are outre and heretical. This is Jenneration XXX.

    The tenets of religions and their undercurrents are incredibly strong, regardless of what any generation thinks,” adapts” with the times, etc.

    Economic hegemony in one form or the other, was always the basis, and religion for better or worse, organised the competing sides.

    Democracy since it founding has meant rather little. (Show me a true democracy that lived for a considerable period of time).

    To put it in “modern” terms, the more democracy (larger number of indistinguishable units voting) a nation has, the greater are the odds for the “House” to win and collect and thereby extend its influence and hegemony.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. schmenz says:
    @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this...

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    And if you don't believe that, you're a "conspiracy theorist"

    Brilliant, funny and quite thought-provoking, Thanks for posting that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Whatever. The sun still doesn't set on it. And whatever it's for, it's not about spreading the influence of the tenets of religion, but Anglo economic hegemony. Evangelicals are outre and heretical. This is Jenneration XXX.

    outre and heretical.

    you say that like those are bad things

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Everything our parents taught us was good, is bad. And vice versa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Rurik

    outre and heretical.
     
    you say that like those are bad things

    Everything our parents taught us was good, is bad. And vice versa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    I was only taught never to equivocate, except when it was wrong
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Gun ownership is an individual right, but as the op correctly identifies, is no check on government overreach and tyranny. Gun ownership is also a collective duty. As the Constitution RECOGNIZES, it is the only means (which pre-exsited) in the Constitution by which to enforce the Constitution and check government (in addition to citizen juries).

    http://constitutionalmilitia.org/militia-what-are-they

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Insightful review. I think many of Ron Paul’s admirers are skeptical about his economic ideas. That being said, Ron Paul has many admirers because he was one of the few people in D.C. to criticize America’s foreign policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Rurik says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Everything our parents taught us was good, is bad. And vice versa.

    I was only taught never to equivocate, except when it was wrong

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @geokat62

    It’s more accurate to see it as an evolution of a continuing Anglo empire... (emphasis added)
     
    Speaking of evolution, I once posted the following comment in response to an article Justin Raimondo wrote for Antiear.com. It received a score of -4 points. Curious to see the response it gets at UR:

    With all due respect to Mr. Rothbard, the goal of peace will never be achieved until and unless the goal of world hegemony is repudiated! If Darwin is right about the dominant evolutionary force being natural selection and it all comes down to the survival of the fittest, is it realistic to expect any U.S. administration to shut down the bases and the defense contractors' mfg plants located in all 50 states, employing a big chunk of the American labour force?

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony. I haven't yet seen such a convincing case being made!
     

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony.

    By setting up such a false dichotomy, you are well on your way to neocon-ville. There’s only “world peace” or “world hegemony” you say? Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us. You don’t believe me? Well, look at what China and Russia are doing to prevent the US from dominating their hemisphere: they’re banding together to defend Eurasia.

    No empire in history has ever dominated the entire world; the longer-lasting ones never even bothered to try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?
     
    Balance of anything is something that I'm very familiar with, especially from textbooks. I've, however, rarely seen it in the real world. The best example I can think of is the assumption of economic equilibria. In theory, elaborate economic models have been developed that purportedly prove stability, but the real world says otherwise. Thus, it seems that stability is the exception, not the rule!
    , @geokat62

    Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?
     
    By balance of power, you wouldn't be referring to the geopolitical system that prevailed just prior to WWI & WWII, would you?
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us.
     
    Yes. And the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @iffen

    full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran
     
    I always wondered why he didn't do any better politically than he did.

    The reason is both parties and virtually all politicians are in agreement that, to quote the Great President, George W. notWashington, “The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper.” That only Ron Paul believes it to be the Law, means he had to be ignored, then ridiculed, then cheated. Their only mistake, almost fatal, was to let him in the “debates”, where he kicked everyones’ asses. Their panicked and ham-handed treatment of him and his delegates in the primary was quite telling, plus quite stupid since he would have easily beaten Hillary or Barack. We could have had a president Paul, now will be lucky to get a Trump. Why we need a license to drive or braid hair, but anyone with pulse can vote, remains a mystery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Ron Paul strikes me as a complex man embodying inherent contradictions. Perhaps better said, Dr Paul embodies several inherent social contradictions that divides the USA along several lines. Some of these contradictions he manages quite well, others it would seem he’s never called out on.

    But first, let me say ‘libertarian’ is different things to different people. Montana (my home state) has perhaps the most solid tradition where libertarian used to mean (and to many still does) to live a practical tolerance where one was not merely free to pursue one’s own lifestyle uncontested but also meant knowing how not to step on the toes of your neighbor. There was/is an expectation of self restraint integrated to the practice. That’s not what we see in the tea party conservatives that had co-opted the term with the likes of the Koch brothers piling their millions into what amounts to a lie when contrasted to the values embodied in the original philosophy as practiced in an earlier time.

    Also, you don’t hear much about the women’s pagan libertarian movement pretty solidly behind Ron Paul based on (among other things like his anti war position) his pro-life stance. Probably because it wouldn’t fit well with the religious right faction that supports him. The Christian right elements supporting Ron Paul insist on a monopoly on conservative values, values they seem to believe cannot cross lines exterior to the Christian faith (or maybe they simply don’t know how to think.) Apparently, a conservative, pro-life pagan movement can’t find a place in their comprehension.

    And there is a liberal feminist element identifies as libertarian represented in Naomi Wolf. Insofar as that goes, Ron Paul’s libertarian values altogether fail with his support for legislation outlawing abortion, his personal experience (obstetrician) and/or Christian faith over-riding libertarianism, wherever women are faced with a stark choice; raising a child in poverty for a father abdicating all responsibility or terminating. That one cannot in fact legislate other people’s morality fails him on this point, never-mind imposing Christian ‘right to life’ values violate a purely libertarian philosophy. But then, Dr Paul doesn’t have a Christian morality hang-up when it comes to people abusing illicit drugs.

    And when all is said and done (I’ve no doubt merely touched the tip of the Ron Paul complexities iceberg) there is a rank hypocrisy in his gold investments where his money in stocks represent some of the nastiest and rank militarism imposing death and environmental destruction around the globe: Vista Gold, Kinross Gold, Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome mining corporations. I detail what Ron Paul is mixed up in, in his Barrick Gold investments (and more), in a 2011 article at:

    http://subversify.com/2011/09/02/ron-paul-fantasy-fallacy-and-foible/

    All that said, the frailties of human psychology demand (more often than not) contradictions integrated to one’s life. People with the ability to altogether overcome those contradictions are indeed rare. Ron Paul is not one of those rare persons but despite his contradictions, by comparison with what we see as ‘normal’ in politics, in my opinion Ron Paul has stood head and shoulders above most American politicians of the past 40 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. geokat62 says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony.
     
    By setting up such a false dichotomy, you are well on your way to neocon-ville. There's only "world peace" or "world hegemony" you say? Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us. You don't believe me? Well, look at what China and Russia are doing to prevent the US from dominating their hemisphere: they're banding together to defend Eurasia.

    No empire in history has ever dominated the entire world; the longer-lasting ones never even bothered to try.

    Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    Balance of anything is something that I’m very familiar with, especially from textbooks. I’ve, however, rarely seen it in the real world. The best example I can think of is the assumption of economic equilibria. In theory, elaborate economic models have been developed that purportedly prove stability, but the real world says otherwise. Thus, it seems that stability is the exception, not the rule!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Bill Jones
    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this...

    Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

    Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

    And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

    Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

    Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

    Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

    …Meanwhile down in Washington...

    Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

    Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

    Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

    ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

    ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

    So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

    And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

    ...Further south in Florida...

    President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

    ...In New York...

    World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

    While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

    And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

    And if you don't believe that, you're a "conspiracy theorist"

    That is as accurate and humorous a summary as any I have read about the official 9/11 “conspiracy theory”.

    Of course, there is a litany of side stories that also took place but were disappeared from public awareness. These include the Israeli moving company who suddenly shut down their offices and disappeared back to Israel, the dancing Israelis who claimed to be “documenting” the event, the fall of WTC-7 in free fall into its footprint, without having been hit by an airplane, the BBC’s pre-announcement of the fall of WTC-7 even while it was still standing…

    Being a private pilot myself, I can tell you that even after thousands of hours of flight experience, I could neither hit those twin towers at the speed and bank that was demonstrated, nor pull off the Pentagon hit while overcoming “ground effect” at that speed. The twin towers had to have been hit by radio-controlled planes, and the Pentagon hit was most likely a missile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    "A radio controlled plane"?

    These articles are very different reading stuff. But then what about the passengers in the planes? what happened to them? I remember the wife of one of the passengers in the crash had a long interview in which she talked about her husband's last words..........
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Sam Shama says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    That is as accurate and humorous a summary as any I have read about the official 9/11 "conspiracy theory".

    Of course, there is a litany of side stories that also took place but were disappeared from public awareness. These include the Israeli moving company who suddenly shut down their offices and disappeared back to Israel, the dancing Israelis who claimed to be "documenting" the event, the fall of WTC-7 in free fall into its footprint, without having been hit by an airplane, the BBC's pre-announcement of the fall of WTC-7 even while it was still standing…

    Being a private pilot myself, I can tell you that even after thousands of hours of flight experience, I could neither hit those twin towers at the speed and bank that was demonstrated, nor pull off the Pentagon hit while overcoming "ground effect" at that speed. The twin towers had to have been hit by radio-controlled planes, and the Pentagon hit was most likely a missile.

    “A radio controlled plane”?

    These articles are very different reading stuff. But then what about the passengers in the planes? what happened to them? I remember the wife of one of the passengers in the crash had a long interview in which she talked about her husband’s last words……….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    There are volumes of articles on these subjects that I won't rehash. To get you started, I recommend you begin by perusing the following and go from there:

    Radio controlled planes
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/airplanes-have-been-flown-by-remote-control-since-1944.html

    Cell phone calls from plane
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

    There are tons more articles available, including speculations about the passengers. Not all questions have supportable answers, but what is clear is that the official story has too many holes to be believable. None of what the official story claims is supportable by evidence that would stand up to enquiry. And yet, we were able to "know" within hours of the event that this was done by 19 cave dwellers? In what court of law would that stand up as evidentiary, leave alone as casus belli for attacking a country? It does not pass the "reasonable doubt" sniff test - not even close.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Sam Shama
    "A radio controlled plane"?

    These articles are very different reading stuff. But then what about the passengers in the planes? what happened to them? I remember the wife of one of the passengers in the crash had a long interview in which she talked about her husband's last words..........

    There are volumes of articles on these subjects that I won’t rehash. To get you started, I recommend you begin by perusing the following and go from there:

    Radio controlled planes

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/airplanes-have-been-flown-by-remote-control-since-1944.html

    Cell phone calls from plane

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

    There are tons more articles available, including speculations about the passengers. Not all questions have supportable answers, but what is clear is that the official story has too many holes to be believable. None of what the official story claims is supportable by evidence that would stand up to enquiry. And yet, we were able to “know” within hours of the event that this was done by 19 cave dwellers? In what court of law would that stand up as evidentiary, leave alone as casus belli for attacking a country? It does not pass the “reasonable doubt” sniff test – not even close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And it's typical for those who buy the government's bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory to somehow require those who point out it's absurd impossibility to answer all questions put to them, like 'what happened to the occupants then?', etc.

    But that is what non-partisan investigations are about, that is what trials are all about. To get to the bottom of the crime at hand.

    And that is what those who question the impossible government conspiracy theory are demanding.

    A real scientific and transparent investigation by those with no dog in the fight. Then and only then will we learn the truth about 9/11.

    I travel this planet quite a bit and I can tell you that a least 50% of foreigners I talk to do not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In fact they usually laugh at it.

    One must need to believe it in order to believe it.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Notably, Ron Paul even though pressured by the Truthers, never accepted controlled demolition nor any other conspiracy theory, though I personally do not rule out Raimondo’s LIHOP scenario.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    ...I personally do not rule out Raimondo’s LIHOP scenario.
     
    LIHOP, eh? As in "Let it Happen on Purpose". Oh, that's total BS, man...

    The origin of the LIHOP is in so-called "conspiracy theories" regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor. There, it has merit, but applying that concept to 9/11 is a completely worthless idea -- the whole idea that these people (I mean the ziocon neofascists) are planning all their wars and so on, but meanwhile, are sitting around waiting for a handful of mentally disturbed Arabs who don't even know how to fly planes to somehow be able to hijack four airplanes in an hour and fly them into their targets, so that they can implement their plans.

    No, clearly, where it's at is MIHOP (MADE it happen on purpose). Independent researchers have largely worked out the details of what happened. The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event.

    Self-styled "debunkers" love to claim that there is no way that an operation like this could be kept secret. And actually, they have a point! It so happens that the secret was not very well kept, which is why just about no high level person was killed at the WTC. There is plenty of evidence of people having been forewarned. Also, there was financial market activity which shows foreknowledge, The fact that none of this extensive foreknowledge of the event was ever investigated already tells you much of what you need to know about the overall false flag psy-op.

    Granted, the extensive foreknowledge of the event is equally consistent with both LIHOP and MIHOP.

    Now, the LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) theories of Pearl Harbor make perfect sense. Probably some form of LIHOP is correct in that case. (You know, the "conspiracy theory" that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese codes in 1941, and knew the attack was coming and decided to let it happen. Probably correct IMO.) But there, you have the Japanese war machine, and you are counting on them to carry out the attack for you that will be your casus belli. It makes sense to rely on the Japanese to be able to execute a Pearl Harbor attack, because these are very disciplined competent people, right? They really CAN do that shit!

    OTOH, LIHOP obviously makes no sense for 9/11 because, while you can rely on the Japanese to execute Pearl Harbor, you cannot rely on this collection of retards and misfits that have been named "Al Qaeda" to execute any damned thing. Certainly not of that scale. They lack the capability. If you need something of that scale to happen, you OBVIOUSLY have to do it yourself! Of course, this serves to highlight a basic difference between something like WW II and the "War on Terror". In the former, the enemy really did exist! LIHOP theories can only make sense when you actually have an enemy that exists, eh? When your enemy is a fictitious construct like "Islamic terrorism", the events have to be made to happen, MIHOP, because, otherwise, they simply WILL NOT happen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence.

    “Blowback”, eh?

    What I can’t quite fathom about the “blowback” explanation is why Dr. Paul (or anybody else) would find it that convincing. Not to say that it is impossible, mind you, but let’s just consider certain key facts:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?

    The United States could carpet bomb villagers throughout Southeast Asia, killing millions of innocents, destroying entire villages, like in the My Lai incident, and I cannot recall a single “blowback” terrorism incident, where somebody who lost his entire family, entire village, decided to blow up some Americans in California, say, to get even. Never happened. I think not even once. There are large Vietnamese populations and all it would have taken was one embittered person, but no… nothing.

    Similar comment can be made about Nicaragua contras and Salvadoran junta. Brutal stuff and no blowback terrorism on American soil despite a large population of refugees from those countries and, again, all it would take is one person with a grudge to do a suicide bombing.

    So, if there is no history of this happening previously, why is the entire American “intelligentsia” so invested in this “blowback” terrorism explanation of 9/11? To me, frankly, “blowback” terrorism seems a lot like lone nuts showing up out of the blue and shooting people, a story line we should immediately be very suspicious of.

    But anyway… cutting to the chase… I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in “blowback”. I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It’s the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger

    But anyway… cutting to the chase… I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in “blowback”. I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It’s the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know it.
     
    That is a reasonable analysis, and I myself am in the camp of those who believe that 9/11 was a false-flag.
    , @Ronald Thomas West

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?
     
    You didn't do your homework, here's a big 'blow-back' example:

    The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858. It also led the British to reorganize the army, the financial system and the administration in India.[7] The country was thereafter directly governed by the crown as the new British Raj.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
     
    And there is this example that would be defined as an 'act of terrorism' in today's lexicon:

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2011-archive/september/the-murder-of-mayo-why-britain-kept-quiet-about-a-viceroys-assassination

    And when the Israeli 'precursor' were designated terrorists:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

    Other than the Israelis who're colonizers in their own right, in the main, colonized people simply wished to control their own destiny. In the 'classic' colonial period, the world was not globalized, not nearly as radicalized and there were not nearly the opportunities to take the fight to Britain proper. In the main, all most colonized people really wanted was the British out.

    Now, the circumstance is different, with the western democracies corporate neo-colonialism exploiting nations with the propping up of corrupt regimes that brutalize their own people (e.g. Bahrain/5th Fleet) and/or allow for 'death by drone' (Pakistan, it'll come back to haunt) while mainstream media mostly overlooks the USA and to a lesser extent, the French, have special operations forces deployed across the globe, the USA in approximately 130 countries. All this invites the very real 'blow-back' Phil speaks of through dramatic radicalization and Jeremy Scahill documents this in detail in his book 'Dirty Wars' (skip the movie of the same name, it's worthless.)

    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.

    The past world you're comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. geokat62 says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony.
     
    By setting up such a false dichotomy, you are well on your way to neocon-ville. There's only "world peace" or "world hegemony" you say? Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us. You don't believe me? Well, look at what China and Russia are doing to prevent the US from dominating their hemisphere: they're banding together to defend Eurasia.

    No empire in history has ever dominated the entire world; the longer-lasting ones never even bothered to try.

    Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    By balance of power, you wouldn’t be referring to the geopolitical system that prevailed just prior to WWI & WWII, would you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible.

    That’s interesting. Would you mind saying which “elements” are the ones you find “highly plausible”?

    Yet you say you are agnostic, unsure… So, does that mean that while are there elements in the truther narrative you find “highly plausible”, there are elements in the official story that you also find highly plausible and thus, you cannot decide which narrative is true?

    If so, what are the elements in the official U.S. government story that you find “highly plausible”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. geokat62 says:

    Careful, Phil. If you don’t relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Careful, Phil. If you don’t relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!
     
    Mr. Giraldi said some things that were quite ambiguous. So, naturally, I asked him to clarify. For example, he says that he thinks that the "truthers" have some "good points" but does not elaborate what they are, nor does he say whether the defenders of the official story have "good points" as well, nor does he say what those might be. Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!

    I thought to give him the opportunity to clarify, assuming he was willing to, of course. So far, he has not answered.

    If you are taking issue with my behavior, you ought to be able to say what the issue is. What is wrong with my pushing the author of the article to clarify certain ambiguous points?
    , @Ronald Thomas West
    I had a look at some of JR's stuff floating out in cyberspace. He's a curious creature, no doubt if he could draw Phil out on 9/11 on the side of the so-called 'truthers', it'd open Phil wide to an avalanche of criticism and attacks by the vested interests while JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the 'JIDF' (speaking of trolls)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Jonathan Revusky

    Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence.
     
    "Blowback", eh?

    What I can't quite fathom about the "blowback" explanation is why Dr. Paul (or anybody else) would find it that convincing. Not to say that it is impossible, mind you, but let's just consider certain key facts:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?

    The United States could carpet bomb villagers throughout Southeast Asia, killing millions of innocents, destroying entire villages, like in the My Lai incident, and I cannot recall a single "blowback" terrorism incident, where somebody who lost his entire family, entire village, decided to blow up some Americans in California, say, to get even. Never happened. I think not even once. There are large Vietnamese populations and all it would have taken was one embittered person, but no... nothing.

    Similar comment can be made about Nicaragua contras and Salvadoran junta. Brutal stuff and no blowback terrorism on American soil despite a large population of refugees from those countries and, again, all it would take is one person with a grudge to do a suicide bombing.

    So, if there is no history of this happening previously, why is the entire American "intelligentsia" so invested in this "blowback" terrorism explanation of 9/11? To me, frankly, "blowback" terrorism seems a lot like lone nuts showing up out of the blue and shooting people, a story line we should immediately be very suspicious of.

    But anyway... cutting to the chase... I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in "blowback". I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It's the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn't mean that he doesn't know it.

    But anyway… cutting to the chase… I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in “blowback”. I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It’s the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know it.

    That is a reasonable analysis, and I myself am in the camp of those who believe that 9/11 was a false-flag.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Sam Shama says:

    Dr Giraldi

    This particular segment is extremely important, something that gets completely lost in similar discussions, as the role of inequality invariably comes to fore:

    And free trade is often a misnomer as goods are frequently dumped into the U.S. market at below cost to drive American competitors out of business. In practice that kind of freedom can be devastating for those on the receiving end and can be seen in town after town in the rust belt.

    Dumping in the U.S. markets since China was “partnered” with the U.S., if one looks at the data closely, has been one of the two principal drivers of inequality. The other one is tax-regulatory capture (preferential capital gains taxation), which afforded return on capital (profit), a crippling advantage over labour compensation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    The Rust Belt began rusting in the 1950s....the term Rust belt to describe the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s

    The Rust Belt formed well before NAFTA and decades before we began buying stuff from China.

    Remember the popular Billy Joel song, "Allentown" , .This song is about young people living in the Northeast of America. Their lives are miserable because the steel factories are closing down and was written in the late 70s and became a top 20 song in 1982

    The Rust belt was partly created by leftists policies in these states, which drove manufacturing to the southern states and Japan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Jonathan Revusky

    Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence.
     
    "Blowback", eh?

    What I can't quite fathom about the "blowback" explanation is why Dr. Paul (or anybody else) would find it that convincing. Not to say that it is impossible, mind you, but let's just consider certain key facts:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?

    The United States could carpet bomb villagers throughout Southeast Asia, killing millions of innocents, destroying entire villages, like in the My Lai incident, and I cannot recall a single "blowback" terrorism incident, where somebody who lost his entire family, entire village, decided to blow up some Americans in California, say, to get even. Never happened. I think not even once. There are large Vietnamese populations and all it would have taken was one embittered person, but no... nothing.

    Similar comment can be made about Nicaragua contras and Salvadoran junta. Brutal stuff and no blowback terrorism on American soil despite a large population of refugees from those countries and, again, all it would take is one person with a grudge to do a suicide bombing.

    So, if there is no history of this happening previously, why is the entire American "intelligentsia" so invested in this "blowback" terrorism explanation of 9/11? To me, frankly, "blowback" terrorism seems a lot like lone nuts showing up out of the blue and shooting people, a story line we should immediately be very suspicious of.

    But anyway... cutting to the chase... I have no way of knowing for sure, but I kind of doubt that Dr. Paul really believes in "blowback". I suspect he professes to believe in the blowback theory of terrorism because to point out that these things are false flag attacks would be political suicide. It's the one thing no American politician can say. That, however, doesn't mean that he doesn't know it.

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?

    You didn’t do your homework, here’s a big ‘blow-back’ example:

    The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858. It also led the British to reorganize the army, the financial system and the administration in India.[7] The country was thereafter directly governed by the crown as the new British Raj.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

    And there is this example that would be defined as an ‘act of terrorism’ in today’s lexicon:

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2011-archive/september/the-murder-of-mayo-why-britain-kept-quiet-about-a-viceroys-assassination

    And when the Israeli ‘precursor’ were designated terrorists:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

    Other than the Israelis who’re colonizers in their own right, in the main, colonized people simply wished to control their own destiny. In the ‘classic’ colonial period, the world was not globalized, not nearly as radicalized and there were not nearly the opportunities to take the fight to Britain proper. In the main, all most colonized people really wanted was the British out.

    Now, the circumstance is different, with the western democracies corporate neo-colonialism exploiting nations with the propping up of corrupt regimes that brutalize their own people (e.g. Bahrain/5th Fleet) and/or allow for ‘death by drone’ (Pakistan, it’ll come back to haunt) while mainstream media mostly overlooks the USA and to a lesser extent, the French, have special operations forces deployed across the globe, the USA in approximately 130 countries. All this invites the very real ‘blow-back’ Phil speaks of through dramatic radicalization and Jeremy Scahill documents this in detail in his book ‘Dirty Wars’ (skip the movie of the same name, it’s worthless.)

    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.

    The past world you’re comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    To my mind I put the Inquisition as blowback to Moorish /Jewish domination of Andalusia
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    You didn’t do your homework, here’s a big ‘blow-back’ example:
     
    Ronald, I don't want to come across as excessively thin-skinned, but I really wish you'd cut this kind of churlishness as in: "You didn't do your homework" ya deeda... You often have interesting valid points, but there is this constant needling and disrespect that is really uncalled for. Now, to answer your points:

    I don't consider this to be an example of "blowback terrorism". To me, a military uprising by Indians in India is pretty clearly not what is meant by the term. A relevant example would be if a bunch of Indians had made their way to London and killed a bunch of random Brits because they didn't like the policies of the British government. To the best of my knowledge, something like that never happened.


    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.
     
    That's the theory, but the fact is that, for over a decade, all the major terrorist plots allegedly "uncovered" in the U.S. have clearly been FBI sting operations, in which government agents basically entrapped some dupes into participating in a plot that the FBI itself had concocted. If there really was all kinds of naturally occurring "blowback terrorism" out there, why would there be any need for this?

    So, apparently, not only was their no "blowback terrorism" problem in Victorian or Edwardian England, but there is no bona fide blowback terrorism problem in present-day America. The events that are touted as blowback, such as 9/11 and 7/7 are actually false flags.


    The past world you’re comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.
     
    One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970's. Was the world of the 1970's that different from the current day? There were regular trans-oceanic flights, after all.

    The U.S. had killed millions of people in Vietnam. If "blowback terrorism" is such a real phenomenon, why was there no concern about accepting hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people into the country? Couldn't a few of them have been "blowback terrorists"? What is odd about this is that, not only was there no blowback terrorism, but the whole idea was not part of the public discourse at the time!!?? Similarly, in the 1980's, I do not recall anybody saying that it was dangerous to accept Salvadoran refugees into the country because some of them might be embittered people who would conduct "blowback terrorism". Was the world of the 1980's even so different from the world we now live in?

    You know, somebody told me recently, but I haven't verified it, that the term "blowback" was coined by the CIA in the 1950's. Now, just think about that a second, Ronald. If the term "blowback" was coined in the fifties, that means that, up until then, the phenomenon that the term describes, if it existed, was so rare that nobody had even bothered to come up with a word for it! Does this not give you pause? (If it doesn't, I think it should...)

    But, finally, the real question to consider here is this: why is the entire American "intelligentsia" so invested in this "blowback" explanation? It certainly doesn't seem to be strongly rooted in history, while the alternative explanation, false flag terrorism, is rooted in real history, operation Gladio in Italy and many other similar things going way back in time. Thus, at first blush, it would seem to actually be more worth examining than the "blowback" theory. Yet the American intelligentsia, led by figures like Chomsky and publications like counterpunch and so on, have put all their eggs in the "blowback terrorism" basket and openly ridicule the other side of the debate. Why is that?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Philip Giraldi
    I would not want to speak for Dr. Paul, but my recollection is that he clearly believed that 9/11 was being exploited by the Bush Administration and its neocon managers to create a state of permanent war that would lead to the overthrow of every non-pliable Muslim regime in the Middle East. He saw the series of wars that resulted as completely contrived and not in America's interest. Several of his books have made the point that the United States has provoked blowback overseas by its aggressive military presence in numerous countries and he, like many others, has noted that 9/11 was at least in part a response to that US presence. I think it is an accurate assessment to opine that 9/11 was in large part caused by US policies and actions. Against that, I am personally an agnostic on the truther narrative but I do find certain elements in it highly plausible. Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The "innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals" narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Even accepting that the US (and Israeli) role in 9/11 might have been, shall we say, proactive there still might have been other elements at play. The “innocent America attacked by Muslim radicals” narrative is a favorite of Republicans and many Democrats but it is the product of tunnel vision.

    Your cautious choice of words and phrasing is not lost on me. One of the significant accomplishments of the intelligence/military community (of which you were a part) has been the creation of the label “conspiracy theorist” as one of the most effective bludgeons against reputable people, putting the fear of the devil into their hearts and preventing them from being honest and forthright about their opinions. So, I am not surprised that you would hesitate to voice your opinion on the subject.

    It is perfectly reasonable for us to speculate on the motives and actions of foreign nations, even in the absence of sufficient data (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, ,…), but it is verboten to question the official narrative without being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” – the lowest of the low, relegated to the fringes of society and depicted with tin foil hats. Yet, the shallowest of studies of history shows that many such “conspiracy theories” are now accepted as facts. It is a property of these events that the evidence that would reveal them to be facts are controlled by the government, and it takes years for them to leak out if ever.

    The Gulf of Tonkin incident turned out to be true. The deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty turned out to be true. The CIA’s “Heart Attack Gun” turned out to be true. Operation Mockingbird turned out to be true. The FBI poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition turned out to be true. Cancer-Causing polio Vaccines in the 1960s turned out to be true. The military attempt to develop a “gay bomb” in 1994 turned out to be true.

    http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/

    The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment turned out to be true. Project MK-ULTRA turned out to be true. Operation Paperclip – the secret intelligence program that brought Nazi scientists to America to help develop chemical weapons for the US, including LSD, turned out to be true. The “Nayirah testimony” – the girl claimed Iraqi soldiers had removed babies from incubators and left them to die, turned out to be manufactured casus belli. Operation Northwoods to create fake attacks in America, killing American citizens by our government, designed to be blamed on Cuba, to drum up support for war, turned out to be true.

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/seven-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-which-turned-out-to-be-true–xJeose5tlZ

    CIA Drug Trafficking during the 1980s turned out to be true. COINTELPRO by the FBI turned out to be true. Operation Snow White’s unprecedented infiltration of the US government by the Church of Scientology turned out to be true. NSA spying on US citizens turned out to be true. Globalist corporatocracy turned out to be true, leading to the TISA and the TPP.

    http://theantimedia.org/10-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

    I could go on and on about the Manhattan Project, Watergate, etc., etc. – the list is very long and getting longer. If you are interested, here is a sample:

    http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

    The point of all of this is to say that far from being insane, conspiracy theorists may well represent the sane among us who do not unquestioningly accept the latest pile of slop from the mass media. These are the people who actually spend time, energy, and critical thinking, in determining the truth, and then educating their fellow citizens about it. This used to be the definition of liberty and what it meant to have an American democracy – a vigilant citizenry.

    I, for one, refuse to let the government get away with it. Shout it from the roof tops: 9/11 was a false-flag operation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Kiza says:
    @Rurik

    Of all the f’ed up people in this World, you Americans are the clear leaders.
     
    Would your country countenance a blog of this type? Where us American's are trying to hold our government's feet to the fire for its complicity in such things as 911- or for waging (or participating in) illegal wars of aggression against innocent countries?

    Does your country allow you to openly question Israel's role in 911?

    To openly question even the holy Holocaust?!

    America today is suffering under a demonic possession it's true. But the people are not demonic, just simple, salt of the earth types who can be used for good or evil depending on the regime we suffer under. We're the same people who created the sublime and singular Declaration of Independence. The same people who waged a horrific war on ourselves to end slavery.

    We have our historical warts to be sure, just like everyone else. But the American people, for all their gullibility and naiveté are not rotten by design, but our elites sure are. But then they're most likely cut from the same cloth as your elites, only sans the superpower status. What I like to ask people who criticize Americans is; what about your government? Is it too a party to the war on terror? Because if your government has or is sending arms or troops into these contrived conflicts for Israel, then your governments are just as guilty. Does that mean the people of Canada or Poland or Puerto Rico are just as "f'ed up" as Americans?

    Well, in my country nobody is talking “internment camps”. I am glad that no-American appears to have understood my points and just felt offended. This just means that there is little hope for you as a nation.

    Firstly, if I was like the majority of people unhappy with the so called “US benevolent hegemony” I would be doing harm to the US. Instead I am trying to help you see and understand, I am engaging in a debate with you (a rough one), although I do not have much respect for the majority of you.

    Secondly, the US is in the grip of the so called two parties, the Coca Cola party and the Pepsi Cola party. This character geocat62 criticizes “the liberals” for not proving to him that the World would not be a worse place than under the current US terror. Thus, your intellectual debate is on the level of “how hard it is to carry the White mens’ burden”, if the US does not rule the World, then someone much worse would. BTW, this is the justification of every capo in a concentration camp: “I torment you, but someone else in my place would do much worse, so you are lucky bastards.”

    But your country is so f’ed up that not only that it is the humanity’s bad luck that you have the most powerful military in the World then you are probably the least suited nation on the planet Earth to be rulling others through any kind of hegemony.

    Imagine for a moment that some other nation was interested in a global hegemony of the US kind instead of trading (China and Russia). Imagine that this hegemonic nation even wanted to rule the US. If only you would be so lucky!!!

    Your brainwashed brains could probably never comprehend why Putin is so popular. It is because Putin cleaned up the necocon mess in Russia. The US started rulling Russia for one short period of time under Yelstin and made a terrible mess of the country (the Americans just laughed at this, just as I am laughing at Americans now). So Russia somehow found Putin and Putin re-introduced the rule of law. He did not kill anyone, but he threw a few neocon connected oligarchs, such as Khodorovsky, into jail to teach others that there are limits and that Russia must come first, not the interests of their gang (and the country that their gang originates from). If you do not understand that this is exactly what your country needs, a country whose necon financial and political elite is running berserk with power, then you are beyond any hope.

    If you would only be so lucky for Putin to want to occupy US and do the same for you.

    Instead, your general Wall Street Wes is planning internment camps for those of you who do not have girlfriends. Well, you deserve it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    My maxim:

    In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage (Ronald’s Maxim)

    That thought was inspired by my experiences as an American. A tongue-in-cheek manner of looking at the American experience would be to consider the consequence of emptying the jails and insane asylums of Europe into colonies knowing full well (they should've known) the result would be a concentrated product jacked up with hybrid vigor. And then to complain at the result? There's blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)

    Putin seems to be an exception to the rule of sociopaths rising to rule. And you're right, he saved Russia by clawing his nation back from the oligarchs. One thing I'm not comfortable with is his closeness to a certain Rolex fan (Patriarch) but that's politics I suppose. Putin is not immortal however and I have no idea how Russia might preserve his legacy for future generations of leaders. In the western model (history) there was a time when kings sought out wise men and truly cared for the welfare of their people. We're a longs ways away from that but Putin seems to surround himself with savvy people.

    Myself, I'd prefer to live in a decentralized/non-hierarchy tribal model in a non-globalized world. Western ethnocentrism coupled to colonialism morphed into globalism killed any possibility of living any off the grid, sane dream.

    , @Sam Shama
    Sounds as if you are so smart and pious (trying to help us). Why don't you answer a question: Why do so many many immigrants from every country want to come here? From Russia, from China, and wherever the heck you come from ,......I don't know. How many Americans want to go there?
    , @Rurik
    God bless

    Your angst is mine

    You're just a little myopic is all

    Many Americans are much more upset than you at the way our (my!) country is being used like a cheap bitch to be the projection of power for men like Sheldon Adelson !

    When our vets, (any one of whom are worth a thousand Adelsons) come home and snuff it for the pain of living with what they've been forced to do, you don't think that bothers us Americans?

    Like Russia under the thrall of the evil Bolshevik insanity of the last century, in this century it's our country today that is doing all this evil!

    Do you think we like it?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Seamus Padraig

    What Justin and others who subscribe to the non-interventionist school of thought must do is demonstrate that if the U.S. decides to turn its swords into plough shares, that China, Russia, or India will not become the next world hegemon ruling it over the world, including the American people, simply by refusing to do the same. In other words, he and others need to demonstrate that world peace is a practical alternative to world hegemony.
     
    By setting up such a false dichotomy, you are well on your way to neocon-ville. There's only "world peace" or "world hegemony" you say? Have you never heard of balance of power or spheres of influence?

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us. You don't believe me? Well, look at what China and Russia are doing to prevent the US from dominating their hemisphere: they're banding together to defend Eurasia.

    No empire in history has ever dominated the entire world; the longer-lasting ones never even bothered to try.

    If you want to know what would prevent, say, China or Russia from ruling the world, the answer is: us.

    Yes. And the Atlantic and Pacific oceans…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Kiza says:
    @geokat62
    Based on your two comments, you clearly have nothing of substance to add to this discussion... so may I suggest you move on to something that is of more interest to you.

    Now you are right, I am tempted to go to http://www.foxnews.com/ comments section, I may find more intelligence there than with commentators such as you here (they must expelled you form there). But no, I will stay here and just skip your brilliance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Kiza
    Well, in my country nobody is talking "internment camps". I am glad that no-American appears to have understood my points and just felt offended. This just means that there is little hope for you as a nation.

    Firstly, if I was like the majority of people unhappy with the so called "US benevolent hegemony" I would be doing harm to the US. Instead I am trying to help you see and understand, I am engaging in a debate with you (a rough one), although I do not have much respect for the majority of you.

    Secondly, the US is in the grip of the so called two parties, the Coca Cola party and the Pepsi Cola party. This character geocat62 criticizes "the liberals" for not proving to him that the World would not be a worse place than under the current US terror. Thus, your intellectual debate is on the level of "how hard it is to carry the White mens' burden", if the US does not rule the World, then someone much worse would. BTW, this is the justification of every capo in a concentration camp: "I torment you, but someone else in my place would do much worse, so you are lucky bastards."

    But your country is so f'ed up that not only that it is the humanity's bad luck that you have the most powerful military in the World then you are probably the least suited nation on the planet Earth to be rulling others through any kind of hegemony.

    Imagine for a moment that some other nation was interested in a global hegemony of the US kind instead of trading (China and Russia). Imagine that this hegemonic nation even wanted to rule the US. If only you would be so lucky!!!

    Your brainwashed brains could probably never comprehend why Putin is so popular. It is because Putin cleaned up the necocon mess in Russia. The US started rulling Russia for one short period of time under Yelstin and made a terrible mess of the country (the Americans just laughed at this, just as I am laughing at Americans now). So Russia somehow found Putin and Putin re-introduced the rule of law. He did not kill anyone, but he threw a few neocon connected oligarchs, such as Khodorovsky, into jail to teach others that there are limits and that Russia must come first, not the interests of their gang (and the country that their gang originates from). If you do not understand that this is exactly what your country needs, a country whose necon financial and political elite is running berserk with power, then you are beyond any hope.

    If you would only be so lucky for Putin to want to occupy US and do the same for you.

    Instead, your general Wall Street Wes is planning internment camps for those of you who do not have girlfriends. Well, you deserve it.

    My maxim:

    In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage (Ronald’s Maxim)

    That thought was inspired by my experiences as an American. A tongue-in-cheek manner of looking at the American experience would be to consider the consequence of emptying the jails and insane asylums of Europe into colonies knowing full well (they should’ve known) the result would be a concentrated product jacked up with hybrid vigor. And then to complain at the result? There’s blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)

    Putin seems to be an exception to the rule of sociopaths rising to rule. And you’re right, he saved Russia by clawing his nation back from the oligarchs. One thing I’m not comfortable with is his closeness to a certain Rolex fan (Patriarch) but that’s politics I suppose. Putin is not immortal however and I have no idea how Russia might preserve his legacy for future generations of leaders. In the western model (history) there was a time when kings sought out wise men and truly cared for the welfare of their people. We’re a longs ways away from that but Putin seems to surround himself with savvy people.

    Myself, I’d prefer to live in a decentralized/non-hierarchy tribal model in a non-globalized world. Western ethnocentrism coupled to colonialism morphed into globalism killed any possibility of living any off the grid, sane dream.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I could not agree with you more:
    1) Putin is not an angel, he has connections with too many oligarchs and thus part of the problem in some ways, but he has done pretty well overall.
    2) The key problem of an authoritarian society such as the Russian is the succession and its vulnerability to a single-point-of-failure (assassination); it appears that a dynasty of enlightened crooks, as in Britain, may be a more stable model of rule. But to Putin's credit he has surrounded himself with quite capable people and I believe that Russia would not revert back to Yeltsin's years if he was taken out.
    3) I also prefer to live in a more decentralized, pluralistic society, but this is if/when I have a choice. At least, you and I know what we want, the desirable model.

    I really liked your brief story of the quintessential blow-back, just brilliant. It applies even better to the country where I live now, lol.
    , @Rurik

    There’s blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)
     
    Ok, that was f'n funny
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    Well, in my country nobody is talking "internment camps". I am glad that no-American appears to have understood my points and just felt offended. This just means that there is little hope for you as a nation.

    Firstly, if I was like the majority of people unhappy with the so called "US benevolent hegemony" I would be doing harm to the US. Instead I am trying to help you see and understand, I am engaging in a debate with you (a rough one), although I do not have much respect for the majority of you.

    Secondly, the US is in the grip of the so called two parties, the Coca Cola party and the Pepsi Cola party. This character geocat62 criticizes "the liberals" for not proving to him that the World would not be a worse place than under the current US terror. Thus, your intellectual debate is on the level of "how hard it is to carry the White mens' burden", if the US does not rule the World, then someone much worse would. BTW, this is the justification of every capo in a concentration camp: "I torment you, but someone else in my place would do much worse, so you are lucky bastards."

    But your country is so f'ed up that not only that it is the humanity's bad luck that you have the most powerful military in the World then you are probably the least suited nation on the planet Earth to be rulling others through any kind of hegemony.

    Imagine for a moment that some other nation was interested in a global hegemony of the US kind instead of trading (China and Russia). Imagine that this hegemonic nation even wanted to rule the US. If only you would be so lucky!!!

    Your brainwashed brains could probably never comprehend why Putin is so popular. It is because Putin cleaned up the necocon mess in Russia. The US started rulling Russia for one short period of time under Yelstin and made a terrible mess of the country (the Americans just laughed at this, just as I am laughing at Americans now). So Russia somehow found Putin and Putin re-introduced the rule of law. He did not kill anyone, but he threw a few neocon connected oligarchs, such as Khodorovsky, into jail to teach others that there are limits and that Russia must come first, not the interests of their gang (and the country that their gang originates from). If you do not understand that this is exactly what your country needs, a country whose necon financial and political elite is running berserk with power, then you are beyond any hope.

    If you would only be so lucky for Putin to want to occupy US and do the same for you.

    Instead, your general Wall Street Wes is planning internment camps for those of you who do not have girlfriends. Well, you deserve it.

    Sounds as if you are so smart and pious (trying to help us). Why don’t you answer a question: Why do so many many immigrants from every country want to come here? From Russia, from China, and wherever the heck you come from ,……I don’t know. How many Americans want to go there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Dear Diana, I have answered this question long time ago. They want to come to US because you have stuffed up their country and they cannot survive there any more.

    Someone like you once came up with such argument when the media published a huge queue of applicants in front of the US embassy is Kabul. I responded that when Afghanistan bombs and occupies US, then I would expect the same kind of queue in front of the Afghani embassy in Washington DC.

    Just look at the North African boat people in the Mediterranean, prepared to drown just to get to EU, which (humanitarianly) bombed their countries together with the US.

    When you destroy other people's homes then (paradoxically) the only safety the victims can find is to come clean your toilets in your country and send money home. Clear?

    If not, then let me put it another way - the cry of the World is "US, get out of my soup!"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. geokat62 says:
    @Kiza
    Now you are right, I am tempted to go to http://www.foxnews.com/ comments section, I may find more intelligence there than with commentators such as you here (they must expelled you form there). But no, I will stay here and just skip your brilliance.

    Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Travis says:
    @Sam Shama
    Dr Giraldi

    This particular segment is extremely important, something that gets completely lost in similar discussions, as the role of inequality invariably comes to fore:

    And free trade is often a misnomer as goods are frequently dumped into the U.S. market at below cost to drive American competitors out of business. In practice that kind of freedom can be devastating for those on the receiving end and can be seen in town after town in the rust belt.
     

    Dumping in the U.S. markets since China was "partnered" with the U.S., if one looks at the data closely, has been one of the two principal drivers of inequality. The other one is tax-regulatory capture (preferential capital gains taxation), which afforded return on capital (profit), a crippling advantage over labour compensation.

    The Rust Belt began rusting in the 1950s….the term Rust belt to describe the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s

    The Rust Belt formed well before NAFTA and decades before we began buying stuff from China.

    Remember the popular Billy Joel song, “Allentown” , .This song is about young people living in the Northeast of America. Their lives are miserable because the steel factories are closing down and was written in the late 70s and became a top 20 song in 1982

    The Rust belt was partly created by leftists policies in these states, which drove manufacturing to the southern states and Japan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Remember the popular Billy Joel song, “Allentown” , .This song is about young people living in the Northeast of America.
     
    Yes indeed, one of my favourites.

    You are right, the leftist policies wreaked havoc in the late 50s for the NE. The South benefitted.

    Nixon's China visit opened the doors to what became a cascade in the 1980s. If you look at the genie coefficient for families in the U.S., it reached bottom around 1968, rising steadily through the 80s and jumped in the early 90s . The 1980 and 2003 reductions in capital gains taxation caused the worst effects imo.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g3WZGpDibPM/Up3ZAPRtScI/AAAAAAAAJqE/5hWGdOBol_E/s1600/a-gini-ratio-us-households-families-individuals-1947-2012.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. NAFTA contributed to illegal immigration. American Agribusiness vs everyone else. Does anyone consider buying off the surveillance military police state industrial complex and use it for something useful like high speed rail across the country, desalination, and solar panels on buildings? The libertarian pipe dream died with Rand’s political ambitions. All the war profiteers and voyeurs need is another 9/11 to re-cement the gravy train their way. What would you have them do with all that tribute money borrowed from China? They are going to get it anyway until there is no more to get. It is either work with them and kiss their tail like Rand Paul and most of the other politicians, or be treated like Ron Paul. Would Lockheed Martin care if the same F-35 budget went to high speed rail or not if they ended up with the same profit? Do you think there is a carrot tasty enough to redirect them from this path, or are we going to be like Ron Paul and preach abstinence ignoring the fact that they are the profiteering equivalent of horny teenagers? Congress sees it as a jobs program. I think we need to stop emulating Israel and start emulating China when it comes to what is important (economic growth instead of militarism). Libertarians need to consider using psychology and slowly transform these parasites into prosperous businesses that do not require state socialism, asking these addicts to go cold turkey isn’t going to work.

    The war on terror is easy pickings because the enemy isn’t going to doggy paddle across the Atlantic, and if they do get across to the other side the damage they could inflict is a scratch compared to what China and Russia would do. The Obama administration saved us from another war larger than Iraq that would have cost us trillions of dollars for nothing but human sacrifices for the Christian Zionist war god Netanyahu… I mean Yahweh and the Saudi King of Al Qaeda.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some war profiteers, political officials, and Saudis between smooches discussed how much fun they were going to have after 9/11. Could they not find Saudi Arabia on a map when Bush went after Al Qaeda and its supporters? Why isn’t Saudi Arabia leveled? They are the ones funding and spreading terrorism to all corners of the earth. The problem with the 9/11 truth movement is that they are more interested in proving through grainy videos how the building went down instead of demanding the 28 pages uncensored and then going from there. I wish someone would just wikileak it all. Surely someone has access to all the relevant material like Snowden did. They should make a copy of it, send it to wikileaks, take a trip to Russia, and let wikileaks protect them. Then the world can learn the truth behind 9/11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Kiza says:
    @Sam Shama
    Sounds as if you are so smart and pious (trying to help us). Why don't you answer a question: Why do so many many immigrants from every country want to come here? From Russia, from China, and wherever the heck you come from ,......I don't know. How many Americans want to go there?

    Dear Diana, I have answered this question long time ago. They want to come to US because you have stuffed up their country and they cannot survive there any more.

    Someone like you once came up with such argument when the media published a huge queue of applicants in front of the US embassy is Kabul. I responded that when Afghanistan bombs and occupies US, then I would expect the same kind of queue in front of the Afghani embassy in Washington DC.

    Just look at the North African boat people in the Mediterranean, prepared to drown just to get to EU, which (humanitarianly) bombed their countries together with the US.

    When you destroy other people’s homes then (paradoxically) the only safety the victims can find is to come clean your toilets in your country and send money home. Clear?

    If not, then let me put it another way – the cry of the World is “US, get out of my soup!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Yeah that sounds really convenient. Which countries did the U.S. stuff up? China? No way! India? No way! Mexico?! No way again! Same story for Korea, etc.

    Very convenient story. I am not buying it. All of these immigrants hear about the great and free life here, tell their cousins and they all look to come here.

    Which country are you from? Why did you bother to learn English?

    Every immigrant I know never spoke about their country being 'stuffed' by USA

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Sam Shama says:
    @Travis
    The Rust Belt began rusting in the 1950s....the term Rust belt to describe the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s

    The Rust Belt formed well before NAFTA and decades before we began buying stuff from China.

    Remember the popular Billy Joel song, "Allentown" , .This song is about young people living in the Northeast of America. Their lives are miserable because the steel factories are closing down and was written in the late 70s and became a top 20 song in 1982

    The Rust belt was partly created by leftists policies in these states, which drove manufacturing to the southern states and Japan.

    Remember the popular Billy Joel song, “Allentown” , .This song is about young people living in the Northeast of America.

    Yes indeed, one of my favourites.

    You are right, the leftist policies wreaked havoc in the late 50s for the NE. The South benefitted.

    Nixon’s China visit opened the doors to what became a cascade in the 1980s. If you look at the genie coefficient for families in the U.S., it reached bottom around 1968, rising steadily through the 80s and jumped in the early 90s . The 1980 and 2003 reductions in capital gains taxation caused the worst effects imo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    Dear Diana, I have answered this question long time ago. They want to come to US because you have stuffed up their country and they cannot survive there any more.

    Someone like you once came up with such argument when the media published a huge queue of applicants in front of the US embassy is Kabul. I responded that when Afghanistan bombs and occupies US, then I would expect the same kind of queue in front of the Afghani embassy in Washington DC.

    Just look at the North African boat people in the Mediterranean, prepared to drown just to get to EU, which (humanitarianly) bombed their countries together with the US.

    When you destroy other people's homes then (paradoxically) the only safety the victims can find is to come clean your toilets in your country and send money home. Clear?

    If not, then let me put it another way - the cry of the World is "US, get out of my soup!"

    Yeah that sounds really convenient. Which countries did the U.S. stuff up? China? No way! India? No way! Mexico?! No way again! Same story for Korea, etc.

    Very convenient story. I am not buying it. All of these immigrants hear about the great and free life here, tell their cousins and they all look to come here.

    Which country are you from? Why did you bother to learn English?

    Every immigrant I know never spoke about their country being ‘stuffed’ by USA

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Sorry Diana, this is becoming too funny again. I thought you were referring to the illegal immigrants, not the legal ones. I cannot respond to you any more. Just, consider running a poll on the immigrants: did the US stuff up your home country?
    , @Anonymous
    Wow, what planet have you been hiding upon?

    My neighbourhood has been transformed by reverse-gentrification and now I'm surrounded by immigrants, mostly from Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador). Most are hard-working folk though some of the younger are part of the numerous (and effective) street gangs, some of which incidentally were trained by CIA-supported juntas. Talk about blowback!

    Anyhow, the consensus amongst these immigrants is just as Kiza states: the US -- via death squads, paramilitaries, transnationals, CIA / military advisors -- have `stuffed' their nations and yes, they do want the `great and free life' and will take it by moving here and displacing the native labour pool and utilising the social services from the US government that `stuffed' their homelands without guilt because they feel they DESERVE it.

    Speaking of deserving things, I recall a poll of Central / South Americans taken shortly after the 11 Sept attacks and was not surprised to read that 85% of those polled felt that the US `deserved' them. Personally I do not feel ANY population ought to suffer for the misdeeds of their elected representatives but this sentiment certainly is an indictment of US foreign policy.

    Gilles
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Kiza says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    My maxim:

    In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage (Ronald’s Maxim)

    That thought was inspired by my experiences as an American. A tongue-in-cheek manner of looking at the American experience would be to consider the consequence of emptying the jails and insane asylums of Europe into colonies knowing full well (they should've known) the result would be a concentrated product jacked up with hybrid vigor. And then to complain at the result? There's blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)

    Putin seems to be an exception to the rule of sociopaths rising to rule. And you're right, he saved Russia by clawing his nation back from the oligarchs. One thing I'm not comfortable with is his closeness to a certain Rolex fan (Patriarch) but that's politics I suppose. Putin is not immortal however and I have no idea how Russia might preserve his legacy for future generations of leaders. In the western model (history) there was a time when kings sought out wise men and truly cared for the welfare of their people. We're a longs ways away from that but Putin seems to surround himself with savvy people.

    Myself, I'd prefer to live in a decentralized/non-hierarchy tribal model in a non-globalized world. Western ethnocentrism coupled to colonialism morphed into globalism killed any possibility of living any off the grid, sane dream.

    I could not agree with you more:
    1) Putin is not an angel, he has connections with too many oligarchs and thus part of the problem in some ways, but he has done pretty well overall.
    2) The key problem of an authoritarian society such as the Russian is the succession and its vulnerability to a single-point-of-failure (assassination); it appears that a dynasty of enlightened crooks, as in Britain, may be a more stable model of rule. But to Putin’s credit he has surrounded himself with quite capable people and I believe that Russia would not revert back to Yeltsin’s years if he was taken out.
    3) I also prefer to live in a more decentralized, pluralistic society, but this is if/when I have a choice. At least, you and I know what we want, the desirable model.

    I really liked your brief story of the quintessential blow-back, just brilliant. It applies even better to the country where I live now, lol.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?
     
    You didn't do your homework, here's a big 'blow-back' example:

    The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858. It also led the British to reorganize the army, the financial system and the administration in India.[7] The country was thereafter directly governed by the crown as the new British Raj.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
     
    And there is this example that would be defined as an 'act of terrorism' in today's lexicon:

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2011-archive/september/the-murder-of-mayo-why-britain-kept-quiet-about-a-viceroys-assassination

    And when the Israeli 'precursor' were designated terrorists:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

    Other than the Israelis who're colonizers in their own right, in the main, colonized people simply wished to control their own destiny. In the 'classic' colonial period, the world was not globalized, not nearly as radicalized and there were not nearly the opportunities to take the fight to Britain proper. In the main, all most colonized people really wanted was the British out.

    Now, the circumstance is different, with the western democracies corporate neo-colonialism exploiting nations with the propping up of corrupt regimes that brutalize their own people (e.g. Bahrain/5th Fleet) and/or allow for 'death by drone' (Pakistan, it'll come back to haunt) while mainstream media mostly overlooks the USA and to a lesser extent, the French, have special operations forces deployed across the globe, the USA in approximately 130 countries. All this invites the very real 'blow-back' Phil speaks of through dramatic radicalization and Jeremy Scahill documents this in detail in his book 'Dirty Wars' (skip the movie of the same name, it's worthless.)

    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.

    The past world you're comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.

    To my mind I put the Inquisition as blowback to Moorish /Jewish domination of Andalusia

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of 'blow-back'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Kiza says:
    @anonymous
    Laughing and laughing and laughing…. Haha!

    You are obviously very wise…. and a great sense of humour too!

    You are just wonderful all around.

    I know that you are probably not interested, but I will still bother to tell you a short personal story.

    In 1993, I was a junior manager in an MNC telecommunications company which was part-owned by Bell South, one of Baby-Bells of the time. We were working in an open plan office and we had a high level manager from Bell South in our office. He was from, what I generally consider, a good part of the US, the south, maybe a state such as Arkansas (although Hillibillary is from there too). So this character opens the newspapers up, reads the front page on which Yeltsin’s tanks are firing at the Russian parliament which is burning. The guy just starts laughing and telling everyone something along: “look at these Russians, they are so stupid, sending tanks onto their own parliament, that is democracy the Russian style”.

    My boss, who was on the same management level as this US moron saw my face go deep red (and I am not even Russian) and started talking to me to distract me from my wish to throw this a-hole through the 19th floor window.

    I will never forget this, the US morons are like bacteria – they are everywhere. But this one thought me to laugh at the misfortune of his compatriots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. The destruction of America’s industrial base is due less to unquestionably stupid left-liberal policies, than to the post-war financial order wherein the dollar was enshrined as the world’s reserve currency. The US never had to retrench it’s financial system in the face of current account deficits, which were allowed to persist for decades (something which couldn’t have happened under the old gold standard, flawed as it was in many ways). The non-financial economy suffered as a result.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Kiza says:
    @Sam Shama
    Yeah that sounds really convenient. Which countries did the U.S. stuff up? China? No way! India? No way! Mexico?! No way again! Same story for Korea, etc.

    Very convenient story. I am not buying it. All of these immigrants hear about the great and free life here, tell their cousins and they all look to come here.

    Which country are you from? Why did you bother to learn English?

    Every immigrant I know never spoke about their country being 'stuffed' by USA

    Sorry Diana, this is becoming too funny again. I thought you were referring to the illegal immigrants, not the legal ones. I cannot respond to you any more. Just, consider running a poll on the immigrants: did the US stuff up your home country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Look I don't give a crap if it is getting too funny for you or whatever. You laugh too much. USA is my country.

    Just for the record you made a blanket statement that immigrants came to this country because we 'stuffed up' their countries. You mentioned nothing about 'illegal' and 'legal' immigrants. When I confront you with the truth as I see it (which I am sure is the case in general), you run and say 'I cannot respond' (not that I care. This is just for the record).

    You come around bad-mouthing the U.S. and then speak English, hang around English speaking blogs, watch Fox News....what else?

    You sound like a liar to me! (If you think American people are bacteria, I think you are pond scum)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Rurik says:
    @Kiza
    Well, in my country nobody is talking "internment camps". I am glad that no-American appears to have understood my points and just felt offended. This just means that there is little hope for you as a nation.

    Firstly, if I was like the majority of people unhappy with the so called "US benevolent hegemony" I would be doing harm to the US. Instead I am trying to help you see and understand, I am engaging in a debate with you (a rough one), although I do not have much respect for the majority of you.

    Secondly, the US is in the grip of the so called two parties, the Coca Cola party and the Pepsi Cola party. This character geocat62 criticizes "the liberals" for not proving to him that the World would not be a worse place than under the current US terror. Thus, your intellectual debate is on the level of "how hard it is to carry the White mens' burden", if the US does not rule the World, then someone much worse would. BTW, this is the justification of every capo in a concentration camp: "I torment you, but someone else in my place would do much worse, so you are lucky bastards."

    But your country is so f'ed up that not only that it is the humanity's bad luck that you have the most powerful military in the World then you are probably the least suited nation on the planet Earth to be rulling others through any kind of hegemony.

    Imagine for a moment that some other nation was interested in a global hegemony of the US kind instead of trading (China and Russia). Imagine that this hegemonic nation even wanted to rule the US. If only you would be so lucky!!!

    Your brainwashed brains could probably never comprehend why Putin is so popular. It is because Putin cleaned up the necocon mess in Russia. The US started rulling Russia for one short period of time under Yelstin and made a terrible mess of the country (the Americans just laughed at this, just as I am laughing at Americans now). So Russia somehow found Putin and Putin re-introduced the rule of law. He did not kill anyone, but he threw a few neocon connected oligarchs, such as Khodorovsky, into jail to teach others that there are limits and that Russia must come first, not the interests of their gang (and the country that their gang originates from). If you do not understand that this is exactly what your country needs, a country whose necon financial and political elite is running berserk with power, then you are beyond any hope.

    If you would only be so lucky for Putin to want to occupy US and do the same for you.

    Instead, your general Wall Street Wes is planning internment camps for those of you who do not have girlfriends. Well, you deserve it.

    God bless

    Your angst is mine

    You’re just a little myopic is all

    Many Americans are much more upset than you at the way our (my!) country is being used like a cheap bitch to be the projection of power for men like Sheldon Adelson !

    When our vets, (any one of whom are worth a thousand Adelsons) come home and snuff it for the pain of living with what they’ve been forced to do, you don’t think that bothers us Americans?

    Like Russia under the thrall of the evil Bolshevik insanity of the last century, in this century it’s our country today that is doing all this evil!

    Do you think we like it?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Dear friend, you are writing what I am thinking. It is not good to laugh at other peoples' misfortunes, it diminishes you as a person. I hope you understand I was just trying to make a fiery point and that I do not really have any schadenfreude. The US people are not any better or any worse than all other people on this planet. If I would think thus, I would be more stupid than my opponents here. But the US now does more damage then any other nation.

    You mention Bolsheviks, yes the neocons have ideological roots in a former Bolshevik Leon Trotsky and in Leo Strauss.

    As you say, I do not know many vets who are still rha, rha US nationalists. Most rha, rha nationalists are the tablet-bombardiers and those who discuss how many US hegemonies can fit on top of a needle.

    My apology to you, Ron, Ronald and the rest of the sensible guys, I like reading your contribution.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    My maxim:

    In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage (Ronald’s Maxim)

    That thought was inspired by my experiences as an American. A tongue-in-cheek manner of looking at the American experience would be to consider the consequence of emptying the jails and insane asylums of Europe into colonies knowing full well (they should've known) the result would be a concentrated product jacked up with hybrid vigor. And then to complain at the result? There's blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)

    Putin seems to be an exception to the rule of sociopaths rising to rule. And you're right, he saved Russia by clawing his nation back from the oligarchs. One thing I'm not comfortable with is his closeness to a certain Rolex fan (Patriarch) but that's politics I suppose. Putin is not immortal however and I have no idea how Russia might preserve his legacy for future generations of leaders. In the western model (history) there was a time when kings sought out wise men and truly cared for the welfare of their people. We're a longs ways away from that but Putin seems to surround himself with savvy people.

    Myself, I'd prefer to live in a decentralized/non-hierarchy tribal model in a non-globalized world. Western ethnocentrism coupled to colonialism morphed into globalism killed any possibility of living any off the grid, sane dream.

    There’s blow-back for you (as the villagers of this small planet consider how to dispose of a rabid hyena.)

    Ok, that was f’n funny

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    I wonder if anyone has done the calculations which might show that the US could go on affording its wars if it cut the cost of healthcare to Japanese levels, cut the cost of its world championship incarcerations by deciding that pretty well the only drug offence was to disable oneself from decent taxpaying citizenship by the use of drugs and raised the tax revenue which would flow from taxes on gasoline at European levels.

    I do appreciate while penning this utopian note that keeping the cost of gasoline down is one of government's few simple nods to democratic preferences. The most diverse societies give evidence in favour of that last observation.

    FYI:
    It varies from state to state, but in tax happy California taxes are ca. 72 cents on each gallon of gas, and they now want to raise it, oil company profits on a gallon of gas are ca. 5 cents.

    Big Who?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Read this:

    www.factcheck.org/2011/05/playing-politics-with-gasoline-prices/

    Plus those taxes go in part toward subsidizing oil companies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    Sorry Diana, this is becoming too funny again. I thought you were referring to the illegal immigrants, not the legal ones. I cannot respond to you any more. Just, consider running a poll on the immigrants: did the US stuff up your home country?

    Look I don’t give a crap if it is getting too funny for you or whatever. You laugh too much. USA is my country.

    Just for the record you made a blanket statement that immigrants came to this country because we ‘stuffed up’ their countries. You mentioned nothing about ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’ immigrants. When I confront you with the truth as I see it (which I am sure is the case in general), you run and say ‘I cannot respond’ (not that I care. This is just for the record).

    You come around bad-mouthing the U.S. and then speak English, hang around English speaking blogs, watch Fox News….what else?

    You sound like a liar to me! (If you think American people are bacteria, I think you are pond scum)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Maybe you should volunteer your own son or daughter into the next US war. If you are such a patriot then put your own blood where your mouth is.

    In a recent doco, this trailer trash US women talks rha, rha US nationalism, flag-waving, yellow ribbons and the package. Her own son goes to Iraq. She even does recruiting for the US military, trying to convince other mothers of the benefits of enlistment, for a few extra bucks in a stretched budget. Then her son arrives back in a coffin. She is devastated, she goes to DC, she is desperate to find out why and how her son died. No more recruitment, just pain, endless pain she calls it. She looks 10 years older in months.

    As a pond scum, I do not really wish you to send your own blood to kill and die, I only wish you to become smarter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Kiza says:
    @Rurik
    God bless

    Your angst is mine

    You're just a little myopic is all

    Many Americans are much more upset than you at the way our (my!) country is being used like a cheap bitch to be the projection of power for men like Sheldon Adelson !

    When our vets, (any one of whom are worth a thousand Adelsons) come home and snuff it for the pain of living with what they've been forced to do, you don't think that bothers us Americans?

    Like Russia under the thrall of the evil Bolshevik insanity of the last century, in this century it's our country today that is doing all this evil!

    Do you think we like it?!

    Dear friend, you are writing what I am thinking. It is not good to laugh at other peoples’ misfortunes, it diminishes you as a person. I hope you understand I was just trying to make a fiery point and that I do not really have any schadenfreude. The US people are not any better or any worse than all other people on this planet. If I would think thus, I would be more stupid than my opponents here. But the US now does more damage then any other nation.

    You mention Bolsheviks, yes the neocons have ideological roots in a former Bolshevik Leon Trotsky and in Leo Strauss.

    As you say, I do not know many vets who are still rha, rha US nationalists. Most rha, rha nationalists are the tablet-bombardiers and those who discuss how many US hegemonies can fit on top of a needle.

    My apology to you, Ron, Ronald and the rest of the sensible guys, I like reading your contribution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hello Kiza,

    I think a little schadenfreude towards America is hard not to feel when it suffers some consequence to its hubris. I just don't like to see the blame for all the evil America does placed at the feet of those who also suffer the corrupt bastards of Wall Street and J Street and K Street. Our manufacturing has been wiped out, our economy looted, and the poor kids from the ghettos and heartland are forced into illegal wars on other poor people. And then come home and blow their brains out when they realize what they've been forced to do. I feel no pleasure at that, but I'm not too sure I'd cry if Dick Cheney or Jamie Dimon would find it in the black, empty cavity in their souls to blow their rotten brains out and do humanity and all of us a favor.

    : )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Cloak And Dagger
    There are volumes of articles on these subjects that I won't rehash. To get you started, I recommend you begin by perusing the following and go from there:

    Radio controlled planes
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/airplanes-have-been-flown-by-remote-control-since-1944.html

    Cell phone calls from plane
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

    There are tons more articles available, including speculations about the passengers. Not all questions have supportable answers, but what is clear is that the official story has too many holes to be believable. None of what the official story claims is supportable by evidence that would stand up to enquiry. And yet, we were able to "know" within hours of the event that this was done by 19 cave dwellers? In what court of law would that stand up as evidentiary, leave alone as casus belli for attacking a country? It does not pass the "reasonable doubt" sniff test - not even close.

    And it’s typical for those who buy the government’s bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory to somehow require those who point out it’s absurd impossibility to answer all questions put to them, like ‘what happened to the occupants then?’, etc.

    But that is what non-partisan investigations are about, that is what trials are all about. To get to the bottom of the crime at hand.

    And that is what those who question the impossible government conspiracy theory are demanding.

    A real scientific and transparent investigation by those with no dog in the fight. Then and only then will we learn the truth about 9/11.

    I travel this planet quite a bit and I can tell you that a least 50% of foreigners I talk to do not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In fact they usually laugh at it.

    One must need to believe it in order to believe it.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloak And Dagger
    I agree, and it is part of the point that I was trying to make in my post to Phil at:

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020220

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Kiza says:
    @Sam Shama
    Look I don't give a crap if it is getting too funny for you or whatever. You laugh too much. USA is my country.

    Just for the record you made a blanket statement that immigrants came to this country because we 'stuffed up' their countries. You mentioned nothing about 'illegal' and 'legal' immigrants. When I confront you with the truth as I see it (which I am sure is the case in general), you run and say 'I cannot respond' (not that I care. This is just for the record).

    You come around bad-mouthing the U.S. and then speak English, hang around English speaking blogs, watch Fox News....what else?

    You sound like a liar to me! (If you think American people are bacteria, I think you are pond scum)

    Maybe you should volunteer your own son or daughter into the next US war. If you are such a patriot then put your own blood where your mouth is.

    In a recent doco, this trailer trash US women talks rha, rha US nationalism, flag-waving, yellow ribbons and the package. Her own son goes to Iraq. She even does recruiting for the US military, trying to convince other mothers of the benefits of enlistment, for a few extra bucks in a stretched budget. Then her son arrives back in a coffin. She is devastated, she goes to DC, she is desperate to find out why and how her son died. No more recruitment, just pain, endless pain she calls it. She looks 10 years older in months.

    As a pond scum, I do not really wish you to send your own blood to kill and die, I only wish you to become smarter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I don't know why folks are responding to you the way they are. I know we have our problems in this country and we can solve them ourselves. This country is still the best in the world. That is why all of you want to come here, hang around blogs, watch our shows ....everything else. USA is where everyone wants to be. Got it?

    I am Vet and my brother is a Marine. Our perspectives are different than the way you see. Did you volunteer in your own country? If you didn't you are the last person to talk about the armed forces.

    I don't know which country you are from, but it sounds like Russia. Well didn't you guys go into Afghanistan and kill and maim there for 10 years? What happened there?

    I have nothing more to say to you and the people who are tolerating you, should have a little sense and pride, no matter what problems there are in our country. ok?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Wally
    And it's typical for those who buy the government's bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory to somehow require those who point out it's absurd impossibility to answer all questions put to them, like 'what happened to the occupants then?', etc.

    But that is what non-partisan investigations are about, that is what trials are all about. To get to the bottom of the crime at hand.

    And that is what those who question the impossible government conspiracy theory are demanding.

    A real scientific and transparent investigation by those with no dog in the fight. Then and only then will we learn the truth about 9/11.

    I travel this planet quite a bit and I can tell you that a least 50% of foreigners I talk to do not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In fact they usually laugh at it.

    One must need to believe it in order to believe it.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    I agree, and it is part of the point that I was trying to make in my post to Phil at:

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020220

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Rurik
    To my mind I put the Inquisition as blowback to Moorish /Jewish domination of Andalusia

    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of ‘blow-back’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of ‘blow-back’
     
    But the Arabs didn't harm the Ashkenazim, they expelled the Sephardic Jews. How is it that the Khazars (Ashkenazis from Eastern Europe) owe the Arabs any revenge? Shouldn't they be visiting their blowback on Germany (not that they haven't)

    And how is it that Palestinian children can suffer blowback (and genocide) for what distant Arabs did in far away countries generations ago?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Wally
    FYI:
    It varies from state to state, but in tax happy California taxes are ca. 72 cents on each gallon of gas, and they now want to raise it, oil company profits on a gallon of gas are ca. 5 cents.

    Big Who?

    Read this:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/playing-politics-with-gasoline-prices/

    Plus those taxes go in part toward subsidizing oil companies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Ronald Thomas West

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa. Or the Middle East for that matter. In fact, throughout the entire period, English cops felt no need to even carry a firearm. If blowback terrorism is such a natural result of these kinds of policies, why was there no such problem?
     
    You didn't do your homework, here's a big 'blow-back' example:

    The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858. It also led the British to reorganize the army, the financial system and the administration in India.[7] The country was thereafter directly governed by the crown as the new British Raj.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
     
    And there is this example that would be defined as an 'act of terrorism' in today's lexicon:

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2011-archive/september/the-murder-of-mayo-why-britain-kept-quiet-about-a-viceroys-assassination

    And when the Israeli 'precursor' were designated terrorists:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

    Other than the Israelis who're colonizers in their own right, in the main, colonized people simply wished to control their own destiny. In the 'classic' colonial period, the world was not globalized, not nearly as radicalized and there were not nearly the opportunities to take the fight to Britain proper. In the main, all most colonized people really wanted was the British out.

    Now, the circumstance is different, with the western democracies corporate neo-colonialism exploiting nations with the propping up of corrupt regimes that brutalize their own people (e.g. Bahrain/5th Fleet) and/or allow for 'death by drone' (Pakistan, it'll come back to haunt) while mainstream media mostly overlooks the USA and to a lesser extent, the French, have special operations forces deployed across the globe, the USA in approximately 130 countries. All this invites the very real 'blow-back' Phil speaks of through dramatic radicalization and Jeremy Scahill documents this in detail in his book 'Dirty Wars' (skip the movie of the same name, it's worthless.)

    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.

    The past world you're comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.

    You didn’t do your homework, here’s a big ‘blow-back’ example:

    Ronald, I don’t want to come across as excessively thin-skinned, but I really wish you’d cut this kind of churlishness as in: “You didn’t do your homework” ya deeda… You often have interesting valid points, but there is this constant needling and disrespect that is really uncalled for. Now, to answer your points:

    I don’t consider this to be an example of “blowback terrorism”. To me, a military uprising by Indians in India is pretty clearly not what is meant by the term. A relevant example would be if a bunch of Indians had made their way to London and killed a bunch of random Brits because they didn’t like the policies of the British government. To the best of my knowledge, something like that never happened.

    Modern infrastructure enables radicalized elements taking the fight abroad to the neo-colonial sponsors of state terror (how much of the world sees the USA particularly and the western democracies generally, precisely the reverse of the western propagandized view), and not least, modern media enables creation of blow-back worldwide.

    That’s the theory, but the fact is that, for over a decade, all the major terrorist plots allegedly “uncovered” in the U.S. have clearly been FBI sting operations, in which government agents basically entrapped some dupes into participating in a plot that the FBI itself had concocted. If there really was all kinds of naturally occurring “blowback terrorism” out there, why would there be any need for this?

    So, apparently, not only was their no “blowback terrorism” problem in Victorian or Edwardian England, but there is no bona fide blowback terrorism problem in present-day America. The events that are touted as blowback, such as 9/11 and 7/7 are actually false flags.

    The past world you’re comparing the present to, is not the world we live in.

    One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s. Was the world of the 1970′s that different from the current day? There were regular trans-oceanic flights, after all.

    The U.S. had killed millions of people in Vietnam. If “blowback terrorism” is such a real phenomenon, why was there no concern about accepting hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people into the country? Couldn’t a few of them have been “blowback terrorists”? What is odd about this is that, not only was there no blowback terrorism, but the whole idea was not part of the public discourse at the time!!?? Similarly, in the 1980′s, I do not recall anybody saying that it was dangerous to accept Salvadoran refugees into the country because some of them might be embittered people who would conduct “blowback terrorism”. Was the world of the 1980′s even so different from the world we now live in?

    You know, somebody told me recently, but I haven’t verified it, that the term “blowback” was coined by the CIA in the 1950′s. Now, just think about that a second, Ronald. If the term “blowback” was coined in the fifties, that means that, up until then, the phenomenon that the term describes, if it existed, was so rare that nobody had even bothered to come up with a word for it! Does this not give you pause? (If it doesn’t, I think it should…)

    But, finally, the real question to consider here is this: why is the entire American “intelligentsia” so invested in this “blowback” explanation? It certainly doesn’t seem to be strongly rooted in history, while the alternative explanation, false flag terrorism, is rooted in real history, operation Gladio in Italy and many other similar things going way back in time. Thus, at first blush, it would seem to actually be more worth examining than the “blowback” theory. Yet the American intelligentsia, led by figures like Chomsky and publications like counterpunch and so on, have put all their eggs in the “blowback terrorism” basket and openly ridicule the other side of the debate. Why is that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @ Jonathan Revusky

    “One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s”

    Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)

    Just last year here in Europe I was processing some paperwork that required showing my passport. An Afghan in the same processing room, noticing I was an American, was in my face with some serious hostility stating “I have a problem with you” and I diffused the situation with dialogue (I have that training.) His problem? Night raids, airstrikes and drone strikes by American forces in Afghanistan indiscriminately killing innocents. That guy didn’t know me.

    The largely Arab neighborhood I live in without problems (to now) is aware I am of the conviction the USA (as they put it) “is the king of criminals.”

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.

    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical, here, this one’s for you:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/22/demons-anonymous/

    And yeah, it’s about ‘blow-back’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of "blowback" against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really "blowback". By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of "blowback". You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards -- always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge...

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.
     
    Yeah, regarding the FBI, agreed. But you are not disputing my point, it seems. My point was that when you see that every last one of these domestic terrorism cases over a period of a decade or more seems to be a concocted entrapment operation, this kind of suggests that real "blowback terrorism" is not a very real phenomenon.

    As for the incident in Tennessee, that is very recent and more facts may come out. Regardless, I never actually said that genuine "blowback terrorism" was impossible. Look at it this way:

    People are struck by lightning occasionally. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. Suppose the government started touting this problem, people being hit by lightning bolts, as public issue numero uno. You would start asking what is up with that, no?

    Already this would be a very very strange thing. But if, furthermore, all the high profile incidents of people being hit by lightning were actually contrived hoaxes, then what? Aren't we in a similar position with this so-called "blowback terrorism"? It's possible and might occur occasionally, but is apparently so rare that, in fact, the average person is objectively in greater danger of being struck by lightning!


    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical,
     
    Ronald, I think you're engaging in projection here. You don't know me personally at all and are projecting your own obsessions on me. I do not participate in a discussion forum in order to demonstrate how clever I am or how stupid other people are. I am interested in discussing these various issues in order to get at the truth. Now, okay, if getting at the truth involves discrediting other people's BS, so be it, and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it. But that is instrumental to my primary motivation, which is to get at the truth. Once people's primary goal is one upsmanship, the discussion tends to become pretty sterile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    Maybe you should volunteer your own son or daughter into the next US war. If you are such a patriot then put your own blood where your mouth is.

    In a recent doco, this trailer trash US women talks rha, rha US nationalism, flag-waving, yellow ribbons and the package. Her own son goes to Iraq. She even does recruiting for the US military, trying to convince other mothers of the benefits of enlistment, for a few extra bucks in a stretched budget. Then her son arrives back in a coffin. She is devastated, she goes to DC, she is desperate to find out why and how her son died. No more recruitment, just pain, endless pain she calls it. She looks 10 years older in months.

    As a pond scum, I do not really wish you to send your own blood to kill and die, I only wish you to become smarter.

    I don’t know why folks are responding to you the way they are. I know we have our problems in this country and we can solve them ourselves. This country is still the best in the world. That is why all of you want to come here, hang around blogs, watch our shows ….everything else. USA is where everyone wants to be. Got it?

    I am Vet and my brother is a Marine. Our perspectives are different than the way you see. Did you volunteer in your own country? If you didn’t you are the last person to talk about the armed forces.

    I don’t know which country you are from, but it sounds like Russia. Well didn’t you guys go into Afghanistan and kill and maim there for 10 years? What happened there?

    I have nothing more to say to you and the people who are tolerating you, should have a little sense and pride, no matter what problems there are in our country. ok?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Yeah, Kiza actually is ok, and has some great insights. BTW I'm a VFW membership eligible veteran (6 years overseas and state-side) with honorable character of service and Kiza and myself see eye to eye on several issues, so I've no issues with Kiza posting here. No matter your holier than thou patriotic narcissism, right?
    , @Kiza
    Yeah, teach them not to respond to me out of patriotism.

    But what your real problem is that because I am a foreigner you cannot call me a traitor, a lefty, a liberal, and all other names that people of your ilk call anyone who does not go rha rha on just a mention of the US name.

    I could only wish you to resolve your problems by yourself, but that is about even odds with a snowflake surviving in hell.

    By golly, your attention span is not even sufficient to remember that I clearly stated that I am not Russian, so you mention Afghanistan about which you know as much as much as my two year old cousin.

    I did not know that just by being a US citizen, you own every private blog and every zine, that is impressive, must be some secret link.

    Regarding everyone wanting to come to the US, let me take credit for my old proposal that to turn back (illegal) immigration into US, all you need to do is show them the educational videos of unimaginable police brutality from the US streets.

    I tried to appeal to your motherhood instinct (assuming that you are a woman), but you appear to be just one of those soulless, trained & brainwashed US regime's killing machines (your attitude reminds me so much of that legendary a-hole John McCain, the US "hero" in incinerating the Vietnamese).

    I mentioned a mother of a dead US soldier that I saw in a documentary, but I did not mention the mothers of all those Iraqis that this same dead US soldier or his unit probably killed. Considering the US fire-power advantage, for every dead US soldier there are at least 20 home defenders killed by the US, that is 20 Iraqi sons, 20 mothers who will feel endless pain just because the brainless and brainwashed people like you went to Iraq to kill them based on a complete lie of your dirty, dirty regime.

    People such as you have only one role in life: to be the servants of one sickly rotten regime. You are way out of your depth here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Sam Shama
    I don't know why folks are responding to you the way they are. I know we have our problems in this country and we can solve them ourselves. This country is still the best in the world. That is why all of you want to come here, hang around blogs, watch our shows ....everything else. USA is where everyone wants to be. Got it?

    I am Vet and my brother is a Marine. Our perspectives are different than the way you see. Did you volunteer in your own country? If you didn't you are the last person to talk about the armed forces.

    I don't know which country you are from, but it sounds like Russia. Well didn't you guys go into Afghanistan and kill and maim there for 10 years? What happened there?

    I have nothing more to say to you and the people who are tolerating you, should have a little sense and pride, no matter what problems there are in our country. ok?

    Yeah, Kiza actually is ok, and has some great insights. BTW I’m a VFW membership eligible veteran (6 years overseas and state-side) with honorable character of service and Kiza and myself see eye to eye on several issues, so I’ve no issues with Kiza posting here. No matter your holier than thou patriotic narcissism, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Ronald
    So fine you got my respect for the campaign medals you got overseas. Forget about the holier than thou bs. I am not. We know our problems in this country, including banksters etc. But I draw the line at taking insults from some guy, who has go this superior attitude and bad mouths this country without a break. Without a little pride, we are lost!

    that's all.
    Semper Fi

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Rurik says:
    @Kiza
    Dear friend, you are writing what I am thinking. It is not good to laugh at other peoples' misfortunes, it diminishes you as a person. I hope you understand I was just trying to make a fiery point and that I do not really have any schadenfreude. The US people are not any better or any worse than all other people on this planet. If I would think thus, I would be more stupid than my opponents here. But the US now does more damage then any other nation.

    You mention Bolsheviks, yes the neocons have ideological roots in a former Bolshevik Leon Trotsky and in Leo Strauss.

    As you say, I do not know many vets who are still rha, rha US nationalists. Most rha, rha nationalists are the tablet-bombardiers and those who discuss how many US hegemonies can fit on top of a needle.

    My apology to you, Ron, Ronald and the rest of the sensible guys, I like reading your contribution.

    Hello Kiza,

    I think a little schadenfreude towards America is hard not to feel when it suffers some consequence to its hubris. I just don’t like to see the blame for all the evil America does placed at the feet of those who also suffer the corrupt bastards of Wall Street and J Street and K Street. Our manufacturing has been wiped out, our economy looted, and the poor kids from the ghettos and heartland are forced into illegal wars on other poor people. And then come home and blow their brains out when they realize what they’ve been forced to do. I feel no pleasure at that, but I’m not too sure I’d cry if Dick Cheney or Jamie Dimon would find it in the black, empty cavity in their souls to blow their rotten brains out and do humanity and all of us a favor.

    : )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Yes, you are right, that would be absolutely amazing. This World can never be a perfect place, but it can be a much better place than it is now. If the US would just but-out of other people's lives, that same moment the World would become better.

    Anyway, I am getting a bit tired of this routine of challenging and then explaining myself to the regimented brains. Thank you very much guys for discussing things with me, I learned a lot, especially from Ronald (I internalized the Ronald’s Maxim). I will be off for a week or two, to tend to some personal business. All the best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Kiza says:
    @Sam Shama
    I don't know why folks are responding to you the way they are. I know we have our problems in this country and we can solve them ourselves. This country is still the best in the world. That is why all of you want to come here, hang around blogs, watch our shows ....everything else. USA is where everyone wants to be. Got it?

    I am Vet and my brother is a Marine. Our perspectives are different than the way you see. Did you volunteer in your own country? If you didn't you are the last person to talk about the armed forces.

    I don't know which country you are from, but it sounds like Russia. Well didn't you guys go into Afghanistan and kill and maim there for 10 years? What happened there?

    I have nothing more to say to you and the people who are tolerating you, should have a little sense and pride, no matter what problems there are in our country. ok?

    Yeah, teach them not to respond to me out of patriotism.

    But what your real problem is that because I am a foreigner you cannot call me a traitor, a lefty, a liberal, and all other names that people of your ilk call anyone who does not go rha rha on just a mention of the US name.

    I could only wish you to resolve your problems by yourself, but that is about even odds with a snowflake surviving in hell.

    By golly, your attention span is not even sufficient to remember that I clearly stated that I am not Russian, so you mention Afghanistan about which you know as much as much as my two year old cousin.

    I did not know that just by being a US citizen, you own every private blog and every zine, that is impressive, must be some secret link.

    Regarding everyone wanting to come to the US, let me take credit for my old proposal that to turn back (illegal) immigration into US, all you need to do is show them the educational videos of unimaginable police brutality from the US streets.

    I tried to appeal to your motherhood instinct (assuming that you are a woman), but you appear to be just one of those soulless, trained & brainwashed US regime’s killing machines (your attitude reminds me so much of that legendary a-hole John McCain, the US “hero” in incinerating the Vietnamese).

    I mentioned a mother of a dead US soldier that I saw in a documentary, but I did not mention the mothers of all those Iraqis that this same dead US soldier or his unit probably killed. Considering the US fire-power advantage, for every dead US soldier there are at least 20 home defenders killed by the US, that is 20 Iraqi sons, 20 mothers who will feel endless pain just because the brainless and brainwashed people like you went to Iraq to kill them based on a complete lie of your dirty, dirty regime.

    People such as you have only one role in life: to be the servants of one sickly rotten regime. You are way out of your depth here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Kiza says:
    @Rurik
    Hello Kiza,

    I think a little schadenfreude towards America is hard not to feel when it suffers some consequence to its hubris. I just don't like to see the blame for all the evil America does placed at the feet of those who also suffer the corrupt bastards of Wall Street and J Street and K Street. Our manufacturing has been wiped out, our economy looted, and the poor kids from the ghettos and heartland are forced into illegal wars on other poor people. And then come home and blow their brains out when they realize what they've been forced to do. I feel no pleasure at that, but I'm not too sure I'd cry if Dick Cheney or Jamie Dimon would find it in the black, empty cavity in their souls to blow their rotten brains out and do humanity and all of us a favor.

    : )

    Yes, you are right, that would be absolutely amazing. This World can never be a perfect place, but it can be a much better place than it is now. If the US would just but-out of other people’s lives, that same moment the World would become better.

    Anyway, I am getting a bit tired of this routine of challenging and then explaining myself to the regimented brains. Thank you very much guys for discussing things with me, I learned a lot, especially from Ronald (I internalized the Ronald’s Maxim). I will be off for a week or two, to tend to some personal business. All the best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    I am getting a bit tired of this routine of challenging and then explaining myself to the regimented brains.
     
    It's a waste of time even to try. Such people don't truly think for themselves; they just speak for the hive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Sam Shama says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Yeah, Kiza actually is ok, and has some great insights. BTW I'm a VFW membership eligible veteran (6 years overseas and state-side) with honorable character of service and Kiza and myself see eye to eye on several issues, so I've no issues with Kiza posting here. No matter your holier than thou patriotic narcissism, right?

    Ronald
    So fine you got my respect for the campaign medals you got overseas. Forget about the holier than thou bs. I am not. We know our problems in this country, including banksters etc. But I draw the line at taking insults from some guy, who has go this superior attitude and bad mouths this country without a break. Without a little pride, we are lost!

    that’s all.
    Semper Fi

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Shama
    Yeah that sounds really convenient. Which countries did the U.S. stuff up? China? No way! India? No way! Mexico?! No way again! Same story for Korea, etc.

    Very convenient story. I am not buying it. All of these immigrants hear about the great and free life here, tell their cousins and they all look to come here.

    Which country are you from? Why did you bother to learn English?

    Every immigrant I know never spoke about their country being 'stuffed' by USA

    Wow, what planet have you been hiding upon?

    My neighbourhood has been transformed by reverse-gentrification and now I’m surrounded by immigrants, mostly from Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador). Most are hard-working folk though some of the younger are part of the numerous (and effective) street gangs, some of which incidentally were trained by CIA-supported juntas. Talk about blowback!

    Anyhow, the consensus amongst these immigrants is just as Kiza states: the US — via death squads, paramilitaries, transnationals, CIA / military advisors — have `stuffed’ their nations and yes, they do want the `great and free life’ and will take it by moving here and displacing the native labour pool and utilising the social services from the US government that `stuffed’ their homelands without guilt because they feel they DESERVE it.

    Speaking of deserving things, I recall a poll of Central / South Americans taken shortly after the 11 Sept attacks and was not surprised to read that 85% of those polled felt that the US `deserved’ them. Personally I do not feel ANY population ought to suffer for the misdeeds of their elected representatives but this sentiment certainly is an indictment of US foreign policy.

    Gilles

    Read More
    • Replies: @gilles
    FWIW, I am an immigrant as well and am now a naturalised US citizen. A research opportunity led to employment and marriage but had those not occurred, I would have been equally satisfied remaining home.

    I base my opinions not only on that but also on having arrived from a nation that had an equally chequered (if not worse) imperial foreign policy and having visited and interacted with those colonised.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. gilles says:
    @Anonymous
    Wow, what planet have you been hiding upon?

    My neighbourhood has been transformed by reverse-gentrification and now I'm surrounded by immigrants, mostly from Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador). Most are hard-working folk though some of the younger are part of the numerous (and effective) street gangs, some of which incidentally were trained by CIA-supported juntas. Talk about blowback!

    Anyhow, the consensus amongst these immigrants is just as Kiza states: the US -- via death squads, paramilitaries, transnationals, CIA / military advisors -- have `stuffed' their nations and yes, they do want the `great and free life' and will take it by moving here and displacing the native labour pool and utilising the social services from the US government that `stuffed' their homelands without guilt because they feel they DESERVE it.

    Speaking of deserving things, I recall a poll of Central / South Americans taken shortly after the 11 Sept attacks and was not surprised to read that 85% of those polled felt that the US `deserved' them. Personally I do not feel ANY population ought to suffer for the misdeeds of their elected representatives but this sentiment certainly is an indictment of US foreign policy.

    Gilles

    FWIW, I am an immigrant as well and am now a naturalised US citizen. A research opportunity led to employment and marriage but had those not occurred, I would have been equally satisfied remaining home.

    I base my opinions not only on that but also on having arrived from a nation that had an equally chequered (if not worse) imperial foreign policy and having visited and interacted with those colonised.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of 'blow-back'

    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of ‘blow-back’

    But the Arabs didn’t harm the Ashkenazim, they expelled the Sephardic Jews. How is it that the Khazars (Ashkenazis from Eastern Europe) owe the Arabs any revenge? Shouldn’t they be visiting their blowback on Germany (not that they haven’t)

    And how is it that Palestinian children can suffer blowback (and genocide) for what distant Arabs did in far away countries generations ago?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    'Jew' is a short word that covers a lot of territory. Israelis are mostly (not all) Jews, there are Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Zionist Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, secular Jews, humanist Jews and more. The Sephardic expulsion from the Arab world as a result of Israel's founding and related 'Nabka' was blow-back at Jews in a larger, generic sense.

    BTW as much as I despise Bibi Netanyahu, I admire Eyal Weizman. If you want my thoughts on the matter in detail, they're here:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/14/gods-chosen-a-dumb-idea/

    ^

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Rurik

    I rather think the European colonization of Palestine (Ashkenazi founding of Israel) responsible for the extinction of the Sephardic communities throughout the Arab world is the better example of ‘blow-back’
     
    But the Arabs didn't harm the Ashkenazim, they expelled the Sephardic Jews. How is it that the Khazars (Ashkenazis from Eastern Europe) owe the Arabs any revenge? Shouldn't they be visiting their blowback on Germany (not that they haven't)

    And how is it that Palestinian children can suffer blowback (and genocide) for what distant Arabs did in far away countries generations ago?

    ‘Jew’ is a short word that covers a lot of territory. Israelis are mostly (not all) Jews, there are Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Zionist Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, secular Jews, humanist Jews and more. The Sephardic expulsion from the Arab world as a result of Israel’s founding and related ‘Nabka’ was blow-back at Jews in a larger, generic sense.

    BTW as much as I despise Bibi Netanyahu, I admire Eyal Weizman. If you want my thoughts on the matter in detail, they’re here:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/14/gods-chosen-a-dumb-idea/

    ^

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Interesting.

    I agree with it all on principle. Intergenerational violence escalates as if feeds on itself.

    The whole notion of being chosen, with all the megalomaniacal vanity and delusional self-aggrandizement I'm sure has not been endearing over the centuries, or even millenniums, to their 'non-chosen' neighbors, and it's possible that some resentments have been a consequence, and even led to very real persecutions. But then when your tribal narrative is that 'those impertinent, disrespectful human cows who were put here by God Himself to serve us - yet refuse God's will!' - isn't embraced by the "cows", they consider that in and of itself a type of persecution.

    And all the weight of all that ancient, generational delusions of being the master race ordained by God Himself, and the consequent human tragedies, visited both by and on the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust and now with the vile covetousness of the "Christian" Zionists~ all of it - has come crushing down upon the completely innocuous and innocent Palestinians. Who suffer more than what can be imagined, let alone a people who've done nothing but live along side Jews for centuries without so much as a blood libel. Only to be tormented beyond human reason for the crime of existing.

    Would that the truth of all of this could come out, and sanity bubble up from the depths of human despair.

    We're on the same side I see.

    .



    PS, you're kind of tough on Mel aren't ya?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Karl says:
    @geokat62

    I have long been a great admirer of Dr. Paul and was, full disclosure, one of his foreign policy advisers when he ran for the Republican Party nomination for president in 2008.
     
    Phil, I wasn't aware you were part of RP's foreign policy team. Given the unique vantage point this afforded you, perhaps you'd be willing to share your views on how RP viewed matters related to the "Pearl Harbor Event":

    ... the role of the gaggle of neocon “chickenhawks” surrounding George W. Bush in using 9/11 as a “Pearl Harbor event” to declare war on Muslim regimes in the Middle East.
     
    Not sure you're aware, but there is a heated debate taking place in regards to the article A Tale of Two World Orders here at UR about whether the attacks on 9/11 were government manufactured or something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy.

    Someone managed to produce this quote about RP's views that seem to suggest he thinks 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy:

    … but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries...
     
    Perhaps you wouldn't mind shedding some light on this matter?

    >>> or something that was provoked by U.S. foreign policy

    “I cheated on my husband, but it’s ==his== fault”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. geokat62 says:

    “I cheated on my husband, but it’s ==his== fault”

    Not sure what point you’re trying to make Karl… might it be that you have a husband? – not like there’s anything wrong with that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @Ronald Thomas West
    @ Jonathan Revusky

    "One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s"

    Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)

    Just last year here in Europe I was processing some paperwork that required showing my passport. An Afghan in the same processing room, noticing I was an American, was in my face with some serious hostility stating "I have a problem with you" and I diffused the situation with dialogue (I have that training.) His problem? Night raids, airstrikes and drone strikes by American forces in Afghanistan indiscriminately killing innocents. That guy didn't know me.

    The largely Arab neighborhood I live in without problems (to now) is aware I am of the conviction the USA (as they put it) "is the king of criminals."

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.

    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples' intelligence are couched in polite terms. I'm not that hypocritical, here, this one's for you:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/22/demons-anonymous/

    And yeah, it's about 'blow-back'

    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really “blowback”. By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of “blowback”. You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards — always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge…

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.

    Yeah, regarding the FBI, agreed. But you are not disputing my point, it seems. My point was that when you see that every last one of these domestic terrorism cases over a period of a decade or more seems to be a concocted entrapment operation, this kind of suggests that real “blowback terrorism” is not a very real phenomenon.

    As for the incident in Tennessee, that is very recent and more facts may come out. Regardless, I never actually said that genuine “blowback terrorism” was impossible. Look at it this way:

    People are struck by lightning occasionally. It does happen, but it’s pretty rare. Suppose the government started touting this problem, people being hit by lightning bolts, as public issue numero uno. You would start asking what is up with that, no?

    Already this would be a very very strange thing. But if, furthermore, all the high profile incidents of people being hit by lightning were actually contrived hoaxes, then what? Aren’t we in a similar position with this so-called “blowback terrorism”? It’s possible and might occur occasionally, but is apparently so rare that, in fact, the average person is objectively in greater danger of being struck by lightning!

    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical,

    Ronald, I think you’re engaging in projection here. You don’t know me personally at all and are projecting your own obsessions on me. I do not participate in a discussion forum in order to demonstrate how clever I am or how stupid other people are. I am interested in discussing these various issues in order to get at the truth. Now, okay, if getting at the truth involves discrediting other people’s BS, so be it, and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it. But that is instrumental to my primary motivation, which is to get at the truth. Once people’s primary goal is one upsmanship, the discussion tends to become pretty sterile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire...
     
    Speaking of the British Empire, do the IRA bombings in England, including the hotel in Brighton, qualify as "blowback"?
    , @geokat62

    ...and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.
     
    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov't mfged because you're so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I'm not going to name names like Kiza... oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual's position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to "win." But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I'm sure some can attest to this), so it's understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can't "win" on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!
    , @Ronald Thomas West
    There are too may cheats in the Jonathan Revusky arguments to detail other than recall a previous conversation concerning the 'Wizard of Oz' and I'll leave it (with this most informative link)

    http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

    "The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Kiza
    Yes, you are right, that would be absolutely amazing. This World can never be a perfect place, but it can be a much better place than it is now. If the US would just but-out of other people's lives, that same moment the World would become better.

    Anyway, I am getting a bit tired of this routine of challenging and then explaining myself to the regimented brains. Thank you very much guys for discussing things with me, I learned a lot, especially from Ronald (I internalized the Ronald’s Maxim). I will be off for a week or two, to tend to some personal business. All the best.

    I am getting a bit tired of this routine of challenging and then explaining myself to the regimented brains.

    It’s a waste of time even to try. Such people don’t truly think for themselves; they just speak for the hive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of "blowback" against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really "blowback". By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of "blowback". You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards -- always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge...

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.
     
    Yeah, regarding the FBI, agreed. But you are not disputing my point, it seems. My point was that when you see that every last one of these domestic terrorism cases over a period of a decade or more seems to be a concocted entrapment operation, this kind of suggests that real "blowback terrorism" is not a very real phenomenon.

    As for the incident in Tennessee, that is very recent and more facts may come out. Regardless, I never actually said that genuine "blowback terrorism" was impossible. Look at it this way:

    People are struck by lightning occasionally. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. Suppose the government started touting this problem, people being hit by lightning bolts, as public issue numero uno. You would start asking what is up with that, no?

    Already this would be a very very strange thing. But if, furthermore, all the high profile incidents of people being hit by lightning were actually contrived hoaxes, then what? Aren't we in a similar position with this so-called "blowback terrorism"? It's possible and might occur occasionally, but is apparently so rare that, in fact, the average person is objectively in greater danger of being struck by lightning!


    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical,
     
    Ronald, I think you're engaging in projection here. You don't know me personally at all and are projecting your own obsessions on me. I do not participate in a discussion forum in order to demonstrate how clever I am or how stupid other people are. I am interested in discussing these various issues in order to get at the truth. Now, okay, if getting at the truth involves discrediting other people's BS, so be it, and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it. But that is instrumental to my primary motivation, which is to get at the truth. Once people's primary goal is one upsmanship, the discussion tends to become pretty sterile.

    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire…

    Speaking of the British Empire, do the IRA bombings in England, including the hotel in Brighton, qualify as “blowback”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Speaking of the British Empire, do the IRA bombings in England, including the hotel in Brighton, qualify as “blowback”?
     
    To be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure. It could perfectly well have been a false flag. Maggie Thatcher got a lot of political capital out of that. A quick google search says that there are people who think it was an MI6 false flag. Given what I know about things like Operation Gladio in Italy and such, that were going on at roughly the same time, it seems quite possible. But I don't know for sure and I do not claim to know.

    But, note that what I wrote above was the following:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa.
     
    I just did a quick search and in the entire decade of the 1980's, the IRA (assuming that none of these things were false flags) killed something like 36 people in Britain. (I'm not counting sectarian violence in Northern Ireland itself, because I think that is not a "blowback".) That's 3 or 4 people a year. In the following decade, the nineties, it was less. The IRA killed, I think, 14 people in Britain in all of the 1990's.

    Note that I never said that blowback terrorism absolutely does not exist. I just said that it is definitely extremely rare. And this case does not contradict that assertion.

    But look, Genius Boy, this nitpicking of yours here is a perfect example of the type of troll behavior you engage in. You don't engage in the overall argument I am making. Instead, you just look for some little thing to quibble about. You make a little picayune point that doesn't advance the discussion at all, because it doesn't address the validity of my overall argument: if you step back and look at the overall sweep of history, blowback terrorism is something exceedingly rare.

    So, okay, yet again, I answered your question. Now what about my question: What, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence available in favor of the U.S. government's version of 9/11, specifically Al Qaeda/Bin Laden, etcetera.

    Are you still refusing to answer that question?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of "blowback" against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really "blowback". By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of "blowback". You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards -- always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge...

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.
     
    Yeah, regarding the FBI, agreed. But you are not disputing my point, it seems. My point was that when you see that every last one of these domestic terrorism cases over a period of a decade or more seems to be a concocted entrapment operation, this kind of suggests that real "blowback terrorism" is not a very real phenomenon.

    As for the incident in Tennessee, that is very recent and more facts may come out. Regardless, I never actually said that genuine "blowback terrorism" was impossible. Look at it this way:

    People are struck by lightning occasionally. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. Suppose the government started touting this problem, people being hit by lightning bolts, as public issue numero uno. You would start asking what is up with that, no?

    Already this would be a very very strange thing. But if, furthermore, all the high profile incidents of people being hit by lightning were actually contrived hoaxes, then what? Aren't we in a similar position with this so-called "blowback terrorism"? It's possible and might occur occasionally, but is apparently so rare that, in fact, the average person is objectively in greater danger of being struck by lightning!


    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical,
     
    Ronald, I think you're engaging in projection here. You don't know me personally at all and are projecting your own obsessions on me. I do not participate in a discussion forum in order to demonstrate how clever I am or how stupid other people are. I am interested in discussing these various issues in order to get at the truth. Now, okay, if getting at the truth involves discrediting other people's BS, so be it, and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it. But that is instrumental to my primary motivation, which is to get at the truth. Once people's primary goal is one upsmanship, the discussion tends to become pretty sterile.

    …and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.

    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov’t mfged because you’re so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I’m not going to name names like Kiza… oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual’s position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to “win.” But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I’m sure some can attest to this), so it’s understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can’t “win” on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Here is what 'Jonathan Revusky' sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent's argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad. It is not only grossly dishonest, it serves to 'dilute the topic' when people buy into pursuing the conversation - detracting altogether from intelligent discussion and the topic of the article.
    , @Sam Shama
    This is a bit Yeoman's service that you do here. I had better not praise this effort too much, as it might get you further tarred as a troll by the march hares who have not perused your commentary cache.

    I said elsewhere, that JR really pursued me to express an opinion on something that I was quite reluctant to (check the sequence; and it precisely conforms to what Ronald said earlier in the thread), until I relented, which then after a few rounds (and I was sensing his impending, toss of lunch) lost all civility. I regret being any part of it.

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov’t mfged because you’re so smart?
     
    No, I never said anything of the sort. I did say that I suspected that Ron Paul knows perfectly well that these incidents are false flags, but also knows that he must not say that. That has nothing to do with my assessment of the man's intelligence.

    Actually, regarding Ron Paul's intelligence, if you want to know what I actually do think about that, I'll tell you. I believe that Ron Paul is quite intelligent. That is why I say specifically that "it is surprising that Ron Paul believes the blowback explanation" because it is such a tenuous explanation, since blowback is a very rare thing historically. However, as I said, I don't know whether the man really believes it or not.

    Now, if you're now going to jump up and scream that I am calling Ron Paul a liar, save yourself the energy, troll. I would never call this man a liar. Things have to be understood contextually. Ron Paul is a politician and, as such, is probably about as honest as is possible in the context of the system that he operates in.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    no matter how much you disagree with another individual’s position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to “win.”
     
    Now, as for this nonsense, look, Troll... if I have a rat infestation in my house, I am under no obligation to treat those rats in any sort of "civilized" manner. In fact, I can kill the little bastards in the most gruesome, sadistic way, and no neighbor or anybody will fault me for it, say I am a bad person, like I didn't give these rats their rights under the Geneva Convention or whatever...

    Similarly, when you have a troll infestation in an online discussion forum, one is similarly under no obligation to treat these various professional trolls in any kind of "polite", "fair-minded", or "civilized" manner. And particularly, when some troll bastard is trying to define for you what is "civilized debate" or whatnot. People here who fall for this nonsense should... I dunno... get a brain transplant or something...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Jonathan Revusky
    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of "blowback" against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really "blowback". By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of "blowback". You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards -- always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge...

    Certainly the FBI enjoys taking advantage of opportunities at fear-mongering with entrapment to make themselves look good but by your account the recent murders of several military recruiting personnel in Tennessee would not seem to be blow-back.
     
    Yeah, regarding the FBI, agreed. But you are not disputing my point, it seems. My point was that when you see that every last one of these domestic terrorism cases over a period of a decade or more seems to be a concocted entrapment operation, this kind of suggests that real "blowback terrorism" is not a very real phenomenon.

    As for the incident in Tennessee, that is very recent and more facts may come out. Regardless, I never actually said that genuine "blowback terrorism" was impossible. Look at it this way:

    People are struck by lightning occasionally. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. Suppose the government started touting this problem, people being hit by lightning bolts, as public issue numero uno. You would start asking what is up with that, no?

    Already this would be a very very strange thing. But if, furthermore, all the high profile incidents of people being hit by lightning were actually contrived hoaxes, then what? Aren't we in a similar position with this so-called "blowback terrorism"? It's possible and might occur occasionally, but is apparently so rare that, in fact, the average person is objectively in greater danger of being struck by lightning!


    Meanwhile, your insults to peoples’ intelligence are couched in polite terms. I’m not that hypocritical,
     
    Ronald, I think you're engaging in projection here. You don't know me personally at all and are projecting your own obsessions on me. I do not participate in a discussion forum in order to demonstrate how clever I am or how stupid other people are. I am interested in discussing these various issues in order to get at the truth. Now, okay, if getting at the truth involves discrediting other people's BS, so be it, and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it. But that is instrumental to my primary motivation, which is to get at the truth. Once people's primary goal is one upsmanship, the discussion tends to become pretty sterile.

    There are too may cheats in the Jonathan Revusky arguments to detail other than recall a previous conversation concerning the ‘Wizard of Oz’ and I’ll leave it (with this most informative link)

    http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

    “The Gentleperson’s Guide to Forum Spies”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    There are too may cheats in the Jonathan Revusky arguments to detail
     
    Well, maybe... but then why don't you just detail one of them? Tell us what was the single most egregious "cheat", in your opinion.

    Either that, or retract your statement.

    I hope you understand that if you neither back up your statement nor retract it, I will point out that you are a liar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @geokat62

    ...and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.
     
    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov't mfged because you're so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I'm not going to name names like Kiza... oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual's position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to "win." But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I'm sure some can attest to this), so it's understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can't "win" on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!

    Here is what ‘Jonathan Revusky’ sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent’s argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad. It is not only grossly dishonest, it serves to ‘dilute the topic’ when people buy into pursuing the conversation – detracting altogether from intelligent discussion and the topic of the article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Here is what ‘Jonathan Revusky’ sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent’s argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad.
     
    Could you point out where I did that? If this is, indeed, something that I do repeatedly, surely you'd have a concrete example...

    What I remember (since it was like yesterday and I don't have Alzheimer's) that you were trying to tell me that the Indian rebellion in 1857 was an example of "blowback". That is simply not what is meant by the term. And you made it worse by this sort of snotty aside: "You didn't do your homework blah blah". Well, who didn't do their homework, Ronnie boy?
    , @Ronald Thomas West
    Revusky's citing instance where there had been no 'blow-back'

    “One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s”

    My reply

    "Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)"

    Is turned into (by Revusky)

    "First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really “blowback”. By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of “blowback”. You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards — always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge…"

    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued... this 2nd instance having nothing to do with his followup pointing to Vietnamese in a war zone and most recently suggests (of course) I am a liar, all of which which is classic example of creating a non-existent element of an opponent’s argument by misdirecting, misrepresenting or misconstruing the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad (and of course my further pointing this method out invites more of the same 'diluting the topic')
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Ronald Thomas West
    There are too may cheats in the Jonathan Revusky arguments to detail other than recall a previous conversation concerning the 'Wizard of Oz' and I'll leave it (with this most informative link)

    http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

    "The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies"

    There are too may cheats in the Jonathan Revusky arguments to detail

    Well, maybe… but then why don’t you just detail one of them? Tell us what was the single most egregious “cheat”, in your opinion.

    Either that, or retract your statement.

    I hope you understand that if you neither back up your statement nor retract it, I will point out that you are a liar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @geokat62

    First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire...
     
    Speaking of the British Empire, do the IRA bombings in England, including the hotel in Brighton, qualify as "blowback"?

    Speaking of the British Empire, do the IRA bombings in England, including the hotel in Brighton, qualify as “blowback”?

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t know for sure. It could perfectly well have been a false flag. Maggie Thatcher got a lot of political capital out of that. A quick google search says that there are people who think it was an MI6 false flag. Given what I know about things like Operation Gladio in Italy and such, that were going on at roughly the same time, it seems quite possible. But I don’t know for sure and I do not claim to know.

    But, note that what I wrote above was the following:

    The British Empire (and French and Spanish and Portuguese) brutalized the populations of large swathes of the planet for centuries and I recall no issue with blowback terrorism. Maybe a bit from the Irish, but nothing from the entire Indian subcontinent, or Africa.

    I just did a quick search and in the entire decade of the 1980′s, the IRA (assuming that none of these things were false flags) killed something like 36 people in Britain. (I’m not counting sectarian violence in Northern Ireland itself, because I think that is not a “blowback”.) That’s 3 or 4 people a year. In the following decade, the nineties, it was less. The IRA killed, I think, 14 people in Britain in all of the 1990′s.

    Note that I never said that blowback terrorism absolutely does not exist. I just said that it is definitely extremely rare. And this case does not contradict that assertion.

    But look, Genius Boy, this nitpicking of yours here is a perfect example of the type of troll behavior you engage in. You don’t engage in the overall argument I am making. Instead, you just look for some little thing to quibble about. You make a little picayune point that doesn’t advance the discussion at all, because it doesn’t address the validity of my overall argument: if you step back and look at the overall sweep of history, blowback terrorism is something exceedingly rare.

    So, okay, yet again, I answered your question. Now what about my question: What, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence available in favor of the U.S. government’s version of 9/11, specifically Al Qaeda/Bin Laden, etcetera.

    Are you still refusing to answer that question?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Ronald Thomas West
    Here is what 'Jonathan Revusky' sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent's argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad. It is not only grossly dishonest, it serves to 'dilute the topic' when people buy into pursuing the conversation - detracting altogether from intelligent discussion and the topic of the article.

    Here is what ‘Jonathan Revusky’ sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent’s argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad.

    Could you point out where I did that? If this is, indeed, something that I do repeatedly, surely you’d have a concrete example…

    What I remember (since it was like yesterday and I don’t have Alzheimer’s) that you were trying to tell me that the Indian rebellion in 1857 was an example of “blowback”. That is simply not what is meant by the term. And you made it worse by this sort of snotty aside: “You didn’t do your homework blah blah”. Well, who didn’t do their homework, Ronnie boy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    ...and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.
     
    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov't mfged because you're so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I'm not going to name names like Kiza... oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual's position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to "win." But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I'm sure some can attest to this), so it's understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can't "win" on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!

    This is a bit Yeoman’s service that you do here. I had better not praise this effort too much, as it might get you further tarred as a troll by the march hares who have not perused your commentary cache.

    I said elsewhere, that JR really pursued me to express an opinion on something that I was quite reluctant to (check the sequence; and it precisely conforms to what Ronald said earlier in the thread), until I relented, which then after a few rounds (and I was sensing his impending, toss of lunch) lost all civility. I regret being any part of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @geokat62
    Careful, Phil. If you don't relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!

    Careful, Phil. If you don’t relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!

    Mr. Giraldi said some things that were quite ambiguous. So, naturally, I asked him to clarify. For example, he says that he thinks that the “truthers” have some “good points” but does not elaborate what they are, nor does he say whether the defenders of the official story have “good points” as well, nor does he say what those might be. Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!

    I thought to give him the opportunity to clarify, assuming he was willing to, of course. So far, he has not answered.

    If you are taking issue with my behavior, you ought to be able to say what the issue is. What is wrong with my pushing the author of the article to clarify certain ambiguous points?

    Read More
    • Disagree: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!
     
    Like you said about Dr. Paul, there are places people dare not go. One of them today is the truth regarding 911.

    I remember years ago being frustrated with the columnist (who I'm sure you're familiar with) Fred Reed, and his unwillingness to discuss honestly the truth about 911. Today I understand the understandable motive of those unwilling to 'go there'. It's an issue wrought with career destroying rancor and acrimony. Even the anointed can lose their jobs, as what was done very publically to Rosie O'Donnell, until she came to her 'senses'.

    Better to stick to issues of race in America that are niggling by comparison.

    It sort of seems to me that the whole issue of blowback being discussed has to do with men like Ron Paul having to pretend that 911 happened the way the government said it did.

    And it's true that we have been sticking pointed sticks in the Muslim snake. Propping up the Saudi regime is wickedness most abhorrent. The inhuman treatment of the Palestinians, etc.. If we did get some blowback, it'd be understandable. But I don't see the reason to have a heated debate about whether or not or to what degree it is experienced.

    The real issue is 911 to my mind, and I for one do not understand how any remotely intelligent person can cling to the official story except dishonestly. IMHO.

    But that doesn't mean they have to shout it from the rooftops, because doing so today will inflame the sheeple. Sad truth, alas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @geokat62

    ...and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.
     
    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov't mfged because you're so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I'm not going to name names like Kiza... oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual's position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to "win." But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I'm sure some can attest to this), so it's understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can't "win" on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!

    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov’t mfged because you’re so smart?

    No, I never said anything of the sort. I did say that I suspected that Ron Paul knows perfectly well that these incidents are false flags, but also knows that he must not say that. That has nothing to do with my assessment of the man’s intelligence.

    Actually, regarding Ron Paul’s intelligence, if you want to know what I actually do think about that, I’ll tell you. I believe that Ron Paul is quite intelligent. That is why I say specifically that “it is surprising that Ron Paul believes the blowback explanation” because it is such a tenuous explanation, since blowback is a very rare thing historically. However, as I said, I don’t know whether the man really believes it or not.

    Now, if you’re now going to jump up and scream that I am calling Ron Paul a liar, save yourself the energy, troll. I would never call this man a liar. Things have to be understood contextually. Ron Paul is a politician and, as such, is probably about as honest as is possible in the context of the system that he operates in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @geokat62

    ...and if that in turn involves pointing out how stupid what they are saying really is, again, so be it.
     
    So according to you, Ron Paul is stupid for suggesting the 9/11 was provoked by U.S. foreign policy rather than agreeing with you that it was gov't mfged because you're so smart? What you and some others here at UR (I'm not going to name names like Kiza... oops, I just did!) fail to recognize is that no matter how much you disagree with another individual's position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to "win." But the approach of acting like a pit bull is very effective at intimidating some opponents (I'm sure some can attest to this), so it's understandable that some favour this approach because they know they can't "win" on the strength of their arguments.

    Let the barking begin!

    no matter how much you disagree with another individual’s position, you must still abide by the rules of civilized debate, no matter how desperately you want to “win.”

    Now, as for this nonsense, look, Troll… if I have a rat infestation in my house, I am under no obligation to treat those rats in any sort of “civilized” manner. In fact, I can kill the little bastards in the most gruesome, sadistic way, and no neighbor or anybody will fault me for it, say I am a bad person, like I didn’t give these rats their rights under the Geneva Convention or whatever…

    Similarly, when you have a troll infestation in an online discussion forum, one is similarly under no obligation to treat these various professional trolls in any kind of “polite”, “fair-minded”, or “civilized” manner. And particularly, when some troll bastard is trying to define for you what is “civilized debate” or whatnot. People here who fall for this nonsense should… I dunno… get a brain transplant or something…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Ronald Thomas West
    Here is what 'Jonathan Revusky' sets out to do: he creates a non-existent element of his opponent's argument by misrepresenting the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad. It is not only grossly dishonest, it serves to 'dilute the topic' when people buy into pursuing the conversation - detracting altogether from intelligent discussion and the topic of the article.

    Revusky’s citing instance where there had been no ‘blow-back’

    “One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s”

    My reply

    “Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)”

    Is turned into (by Revusky)

    “First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really “blowback”. By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of “blowback”. You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards — always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge…”

    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued… this 2nd instance having nothing to do with his followup pointing to Vietnamese in a war zone and most recently suggests (of course) I am a liar, all of which which is classic example of creating a non-existent element of an opponent’s argument by misdirecting, misrepresenting or misconstruing the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad (and of course my further pointing this method out invites more of the same ‘diluting the topic’)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    “Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)”
     
    Ronnie Boy, the above point is so weak as to barely be worth responding to. It's a very weak argument for various reasons. Throughout the cold war, there were many defectors from the Soviet bloc who were political dissidents in their country of origin. Probably most were genuine political dissidents. However, it is also clear that the Soviet government took advantage of the situation to plant spies in the West. So, while most of the defectors were genuine political dissidents, some were not.

    If there had been an underground group of Vietnamese who wanted to get revenge by sending agents to the U.S. who could then mount terrorist attacks, some of them could have got into the U.S. by representing that they belonged to some of the above groups, for example.

    This all seems to be a counterfactual because, it appears, no such Vietnamese group with a "blowback terrorism" agenda seems to have ever existed! AND THAT IS REALLY THE CENTRAL POINT, RONNIE BOY!!!!

    THAT WAS MY CENTRAL POINT AND YOU NEVER ADDRESSED IT, OKAY???

    So WTF are you whining about, Ronnie Boy? What? WTF is your problem? Did you play a lot of football back when without no helmet on your head, boy? WTF is your problem?

    Now, look, here is another point that I did not bring up at the time. Consider that My Lai massacre. Remember Lieutenant William Calley. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

    Whatever happened to that guy? He went back to Georgia, married the daughter of a rich man, and later got divorced, and I think he's in Atlanta somewhere. He isn't in hiding. He never changed his name or got plastic surgery, just lives completely openly.

    NOBODY HAS EVER HARMED A HAIR ON THIS MAN'S HEAD!!! This guy who simply murdered a whole village in cold blood, unarmed women and children, and it's known, and anybody can find this guy -- if blowback, based on people's desire to get revenge, is such a strong factor in history, tell me: WHY IS THIS CALLEY GUY STILL ALIVE????

    You see, c'mon... blowback is basically bullshit. It's like the lone shooter stuff... Adam Lanza gets up one morning and, for no reason at all, decides to go shoot his momma and then go to the nearest school and shoot a bunch of kids. (On the very same day that FEMA has a live shooter drill going on in the vicinity...) Oswald... James Earl Ray... it's all bullshit... independent researchers have established that these things are bullshit.


    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued…
     
    Ronnie Boy, your British empire example was simply WRONG. The Indian rebellion, Indians rebelling in India is not "blowback". The Taliban managing to kill some G.I.'s in Afghanistan or the Iraqi insurgents killing them in Iraq is not blowback either. Blowback would be when some angry Afghans or Iraqis show up in the U.S. and kill a bunch of random Americans because they are pissed off. Has not happened, which is why the FBI has to, as you admit, concoct all these entrapment operations.

    As for a globalized world, I brought up the example of Salvadoran refugees as well. No blowback there either. Couldn't an angry Salvadoran have wanted to take revenge? Nothing from the Nicaraguans either. Was the world of the 1980's that much less globalized than now? Why is there suddenly blowback terrorism now but there wasn't then? What is this? This is something that had to be invented, like the smartphone or something?

    Meanwhile, false flag terrorism has been around forever... so why would anybody assume that these things are blowback and reject out of hand that these things could be false flags? That was my point!

    And again, you never addressed my point. Just screwing around with weak, basically worthless nitpicking arguments and NOT addressing my main point!

    WTF is wrong with you, boy? Do a bunch of acid back in the sixties, Ronnie Boy?

    I have come to the conclusion that there is definitely something wrong with you. You have some kind of aggro personality, always trying to needle people to pick a fight. But you picked a fight with the wrong person, now, because I'm not putting up with any of your kind of bullshit, okay. So stop it. Behave yourself. Or I'll have to spank you some more. (Or I might just ignore you, not sure... but anyway...)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    'Jew' is a short word that covers a lot of territory. Israelis are mostly (not all) Jews, there are Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Zionist Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, secular Jews, humanist Jews and more. The Sephardic expulsion from the Arab world as a result of Israel's founding and related 'Nabka' was blow-back at Jews in a larger, generic sense.

    BTW as much as I despise Bibi Netanyahu, I admire Eyal Weizman. If you want my thoughts on the matter in detail, they're here:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/14/gods-chosen-a-dumb-idea/

    ^

    Interesting.

    I agree with it all on principle. Intergenerational violence escalates as if feeds on itself.

    The whole notion of being chosen, with all the megalomaniacal vanity and delusional self-aggrandizement I’m sure has not been endearing over the centuries, or even millenniums, to their ‘non-chosen’ neighbors, and it’s possible that some resentments have been a consequence, and even led to very real persecutions. But then when your tribal narrative is that ‘those impertinent, disrespectful human cows who were put here by God Himself to serve us – yet refuse God’s will!’ – isn’t embraced by the “cows”, they consider that in and of itself a type of persecution.

    And all the weight of all that ancient, generational delusions of being the master race ordained by God Himself, and the consequent human tragedies, visited both by and on the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust and now with the vile covetousness of the “Christian” Zionists~ all of it – has come crushing down upon the completely innocuous and innocent Palestinians. Who suffer more than what can be imagined, let alone a people who’ve done nothing but live along side Jews for centuries without so much as a blood libel. Only to be tormented beyond human reason for the crime of existing.

    Would that the truth of all of this could come out, and sanity bubble up from the depths of human despair.

    We’re on the same side I see.

    .

    PS, you’re kind of tough on Mel aren’t ya?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Yeah, good observations on the insanity ...

    Tough on Mel? I don't think so. I admired his 'Hamlet' but he went of the rails with the 'passion' (not to mention his neo-fascist Pius X affiliation.)

    http://harpers.org/archive/2009/05/jesus-killed-mohammed/

    ^ One example of 'inspiration' drawn from Mel's Passion of the Christ'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Rurik
    Interesting.

    I agree with it all on principle. Intergenerational violence escalates as if feeds on itself.

    The whole notion of being chosen, with all the megalomaniacal vanity and delusional self-aggrandizement I'm sure has not been endearing over the centuries, or even millenniums, to their 'non-chosen' neighbors, and it's possible that some resentments have been a consequence, and even led to very real persecutions. But then when your tribal narrative is that 'those impertinent, disrespectful human cows who were put here by God Himself to serve us - yet refuse God's will!' - isn't embraced by the "cows", they consider that in and of itself a type of persecution.

    And all the weight of all that ancient, generational delusions of being the master race ordained by God Himself, and the consequent human tragedies, visited both by and on the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust and now with the vile covetousness of the "Christian" Zionists~ all of it - has come crushing down upon the completely innocuous and innocent Palestinians. Who suffer more than what can be imagined, let alone a people who've done nothing but live along side Jews for centuries without so much as a blood libel. Only to be tormented beyond human reason for the crime of existing.

    Would that the truth of all of this could come out, and sanity bubble up from the depths of human despair.

    We're on the same side I see.

    .



    PS, you're kind of tough on Mel aren't ya?

    Yeah, good observations on the insanity …

    Tough on Mel? I don’t think so. I admired his ‘Hamlet’ but he went of the rails with the ‘passion’ (not to mention his neo-fascist Pius X affiliation.)

    http://harpers.org/archive/2009/05/jesus-killed-mohammed/

    ^ One example of ‘inspiration’ drawn from Mel’s Passion of the Christ’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    example of ‘inspiration’ drawn from Mel’s Passion of the Christ’
     
    Equating The Passion in the way they did to American soldiers behaving like rabid assholes was even more dishonest than the way our State Dept. used that other silly movie to explain away the attack in Benghazi.

    Saying it's a reach is the understatement of the century. That is puerile, yellow 'journalism' at its worst. (and I actually have that magazine)

    You can't discuss Mel's career without at least giving a nod to Braveheart, IMHO

    and he was right about (some) Jews having an inordinate influence on fomenting these wars - for Israel ~ even if he was misguided to suggest that 'the Jews killed Christ' in that silly movie. But then look at the endless, relentless blood libels Hollywood accuses the rest of us of and no one seems to complain. (Except Marlin Brando if I remember correctly )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Careful, Phil. If you don’t relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!
     
    Mr. Giraldi said some things that were quite ambiguous. So, naturally, I asked him to clarify. For example, he says that he thinks that the "truthers" have some "good points" but does not elaborate what they are, nor does he say whether the defenders of the official story have "good points" as well, nor does he say what those might be. Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!

    I thought to give him the opportunity to clarify, assuming he was willing to, of course. So far, he has not answered.

    If you are taking issue with my behavior, you ought to be able to say what the issue is. What is wrong with my pushing the author of the article to clarify certain ambiguous points?

    Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!

    Like you said about Dr. Paul, there are places people dare not go. One of them today is the truth regarding 911.

    I remember years ago being frustrated with the columnist (who I’m sure you’re familiar with) Fred Reed, and his unwillingness to discuss honestly the truth about 911. Today I understand the understandable motive of those unwilling to ‘go there’. It’s an issue wrought with career destroying rancor and acrimony. Even the anointed can lose their jobs, as what was done very publically to Rosie O’Donnell, until she came to her ‘senses’.

    Better to stick to issues of race in America that are niggling by comparison.

    It sort of seems to me that the whole issue of blowback being discussed has to do with men like Ron Paul having to pretend that 911 happened the way the government said it did.

    And it’s true that we have been sticking pointed sticks in the Muslim snake. Propping up the Saudi regime is wickedness most abhorrent. The inhuman treatment of the Palestinians, etc.. If we did get some blowback, it’d be understandable. But I don’t see the reason to have a heated debate about whether or not or to what degree it is experienced.

    The real issue is 911 to my mind, and I for one do not understand how any remotely intelligent person can cling to the official story except dishonestly. IMHO.

    But that doesn’t mean they have to shout it from the rooftops, because doing so today will inflame the sheeple. Sad truth, alas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Yes, of course I'm familiar with Fred Reed, and, yeah, as far as I can tell, he just doesn't go there. If you find yourself in this conversation with him again, you should share this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epu2w7aYDOU

    and inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.


    If we did get some blowback, it’d be understandable.
     
    Understandable, yeah. Well, let me tell you a story. There is a man who has only one son and that son is the light of his life, the thing he most loves in the world. That son signs up to join the military after 9/11 and gets killed. The father is devastated, and feels he has no more reason to live. He knows full well that his son was sent to war based on a pack of lies. So the father, so embittered and angry, goes off to Washington D.C. and figures he'll gun down every one of those Congress critters he can find.

    Would that be understandable? I think so. Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.

    The question isn't whether something is "understandable" but whether it really does happen!!??

    What blew me away recently was that I saw that Lieutenant William Calley, you know of My Lai massacre fame -- that guy is still alive and living openly in Atlanta. You know, this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley who is responsible for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

    Not only has nobody taken their revenge on William Calley for this, but the guy just lives openly, never changed his name and nobody has done anything to him. It would be perfectly understandable if some angry Vietnamese showed up one day and dragged this guy off and administered some justice, but it never happened.

    Blowback does not really exist!

    "Blowback" is just some contrived explanation of these false flags to avoid facing the obvious, that they are false flags.

    Anyway, as regards this fear of telling the truth, the best comment on this is here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EKrXFcVyXE

    You can tell Freddy Reed that the black man in the video is 100x smarter than he is and has 100x more integrity as well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Sam Shama says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Revusky's citing instance where there had been no 'blow-back'

    “One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s”

    My reply

    "Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)"

    Is turned into (by Revusky)

    "First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really “blowback”. By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of “blowback”. You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards — always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge…"

    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued... this 2nd instance having nothing to do with his followup pointing to Vietnamese in a war zone and most recently suggests (of course) I am a liar, all of which which is classic example of creating a non-existent element of an opponent’s argument by misdirecting, misrepresenting or misconstruing the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad (and of course my further pointing this method out invites more of the same 'diluting the topic')

    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.

     

    Note to the gallery: I'm feeling very good about some of my recent participation here. It takes a while, but I feel like really getting the knack of dealing with this kind of shill scum, like Shama here.

    I mean to say, look at this guy now. I gave him such a nasty drubbing (as detailed here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1016730 ) that it now looks like he is terrified of engaging me in debate. On this page, I wrote some extensive comments about the whole "blowback" issue and he doesn't attempt to take issue with any of it.

    Look at this poor shill scum. He's reduced to this this kind of snotty, asinine, borderline slanderous comments about me supposedly being mentally ill. "...recidivism following therapy..." As if anybody here is interested in this blowhard's amateur assessment of my mental health...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @geokat62
    Careful, Phil. If you don't relent, this JR fellow will soon be accusing you of being a troll!

    I had a look at some of JR’s stuff floating out in cyberspace. He’s a curious creature, no doubt if he could draw Phil out on 9/11 on the side of the so-called ‘truthers’, it’d open Phil wide to an avalanche of criticism and attacks by the vested interests while JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the ‘JIDF’ (speaking of trolls)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Two of the best, most intelligent commenters here having a pissing contest is counter-productive

    If you guys used your formidable rhetorical skills against the real enemies of truth, perhaps we'd get somewhere ; )
    , @geokat62

    ... JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the ‘JIDF’ (speaking of trolls)
     
    Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Ronald Thomas West
    Revusky's citing instance where there had been no 'blow-back'

    “One case I mentioned was all the Vietnamese refugees that came to America in the 1970′s”

    My reply

    "Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)"

    Is turned into (by Revusky)

    "First of all, I guess you are conceding my point that your main example of “blowback” against the British Empire, which was a bunch of Indians rebelling in India is not really “blowback”. By the same token, the Viet Cong killing Americans in Vietnam was not blowback either. Nor is Taliban or Iraqi resistance fighters killing Americans in those respective countries an example of “blowback”. You would be a much more credible and respectable commenter if you simply conceded graciously points like this, rather than just attempt to bull onwards — always maintaining this sort of obnoxious edge…"

    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued... this 2nd instance having nothing to do with his followup pointing to Vietnamese in a war zone and most recently suggests (of course) I am a liar, all of which which is classic example of creating a non-existent element of an opponent’s argument by misdirecting, misrepresenting or misconstruing the previous points made, which he then knocks down to make his opponent look bad (and of course my further pointing this method out invites more of the same 'diluting the topic')

    “Why would you expect the ARVN military officers, capitalists, collaborators and Vietnamese organized crime evacuated to the USA would be inclined to terrorism in the USA? (rhetorical question.)”

    Ronnie Boy, the above point is so weak as to barely be worth responding to. It’s a very weak argument for various reasons. Throughout the cold war, there were many defectors from the Soviet bloc who were political dissidents in their country of origin. Probably most were genuine political dissidents. However, it is also clear that the Soviet government took advantage of the situation to plant spies in the West. So, while most of the defectors were genuine political dissidents, some were not.

    If there had been an underground group of Vietnamese who wanted to get revenge by sending agents to the U.S. who could then mount terrorist attacks, some of them could have got into the U.S. by representing that they belonged to some of the above groups, for example.

    This all seems to be a counterfactual because, it appears, no such Vietnamese group with a “blowback terrorism” agenda seems to have ever existed! AND THAT IS REALLY THE CENTRAL POINT, RONNIE BOY!!!!

    THAT WAS MY CENTRAL POINT AND YOU NEVER ADDRESSED IT, OKAY???

    So WTF are you whining about, Ronnie Boy? What? WTF is your problem? Did you play a lot of football back when without no helmet on your head, boy? WTF is your problem?

    Now, look, here is another point that I did not bring up at the time. Consider that My Lai massacre. Remember Lieutenant William Calley. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

    Whatever happened to that guy? He went back to Georgia, married the daughter of a rich man, and later got divorced, and I think he’s in Atlanta somewhere. He isn’t in hiding. He never changed his name or got plastic surgery, just lives completely openly.

    NOBODY HAS EVER HARMED A HAIR ON THIS MAN’S HEAD!!! This guy who simply murdered a whole village in cold blood, unarmed women and children, and it’s known, and anybody can find this guy — if blowback, based on people’s desire to get revenge, is such a strong factor in history, tell me: WHY IS THIS CALLEY GUY STILL ALIVE????

    You see, c’mon… blowback is basically bullshit. It’s like the lone shooter stuff… Adam Lanza gets up one morning and, for no reason at all, decides to go shoot his momma and then go to the nearest school and shoot a bunch of kids. (On the very same day that FEMA has a live shooter drill going on in the vicinity…) Oswald… James Earl Ray… it’s all bullshit… independent researchers have established that these things are bullshit.

    The British empire example is directed away from his original point of no blow-back in Britain and my pointing out that period of history was entirely different to a globalized world and as well he ignores my point there had not been been blow-back in the USA from his Vietnamese example is due to these were no doubt people grateful to be rescued…

    Ronnie Boy, your British empire example was simply WRONG. The Indian rebellion, Indians rebelling in India is not “blowback”. The Taliban managing to kill some G.I.’s in Afghanistan or the Iraqi insurgents killing them in Iraq is not blowback either. Blowback would be when some angry Afghans or Iraqis show up in the U.S. and kill a bunch of random Americans because they are pissed off. Has not happened, which is why the FBI has to, as you admit, concoct all these entrapment operations.

    As for a globalized world, I brought up the example of Salvadoran refugees as well. No blowback there either. Couldn’t an angry Salvadoran have wanted to take revenge? Nothing from the Nicaraguans either. Was the world of the 1980′s that much less globalized than now? Why is there suddenly blowback terrorism now but there wasn’t then? What is this? This is something that had to be invented, like the smartphone or something?

    Meanwhile, false flag terrorism has been around forever… so why would anybody assume that these things are blowback and reject out of hand that these things could be false flags? That was my point!

    And again, you never addressed my point. Just screwing around with weak, basically worthless nitpicking arguments and NOT addressing my main point!

    WTF is wrong with you, boy? Do a bunch of acid back in the sixties, Ronnie Boy?

    I have come to the conclusion that there is definitely something wrong with you. You have some kind of aggro personality, always trying to needle people to pick a fight. But you picked a fight with the wrong person, now, because I’m not putting up with any of your kind of bullshit, okay. So stop it. Behave yourself. Or I’ll have to spank you some more. (Or I might just ignore you, not sure… but anyway…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Yeah, good observations on the insanity ...

    Tough on Mel? I don't think so. I admired his 'Hamlet' but he went of the rails with the 'passion' (not to mention his neo-fascist Pius X affiliation.)

    http://harpers.org/archive/2009/05/jesus-killed-mohammed/

    ^ One example of 'inspiration' drawn from Mel's Passion of the Christ'

    example of ‘inspiration’ drawn from Mel’s Passion of the Christ’

    Equating The Passion in the way they did to American soldiers behaving like rabid assholes was even more dishonest than the way our State Dept. used that other silly movie to explain away the attack in Benghazi.

    Saying it’s a reach is the understatement of the century. That is puerile, yellow ‘journalism’ at its worst. (and I actually have that magazine)

    You can’t discuss Mel’s career without at least giving a nod to Braveheart, IMHO

    and he was right about (some) Jews having an inordinate influence on fomenting these wars – for Israel ~ even if he was misguided to suggest that ‘the Jews killed Christ’ in that silly movie. But then look at the endless, relentless blood libels Hollywood accuses the rest of us of and no one seems to complain. (Except Marlin Brando if I remember correctly )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I had a look at some of JR's stuff floating out in cyberspace. He's a curious creature, no doubt if he could draw Phil out on 9/11 on the side of the so-called 'truthers', it'd open Phil wide to an avalanche of criticism and attacks by the vested interests while JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the 'JIDF' (speaking of trolls)

    Two of the best, most intelligent commenters here having a pissing contest is counter-productive

    If you guys used your formidable rhetorical skills against the real enemies of truth, perhaps we’d get somewhere ; )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Fighting dirty might make sense in certain context (bars, alleys) but does little to further intelligent discussion, when attempting to defend one's ideas, would be my observation.

    Insofar as Mel Gibson, if he'd quit Pius X, and learn to control his anti-Semitic and misogynist rants (quit drinking) it'd be a good start whenever he might like to regenerate some credibility - again, my opinion ..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Rurik
    Two of the best, most intelligent commenters here having a pissing contest is counter-productive

    If you guys used your formidable rhetorical skills against the real enemies of truth, perhaps we'd get somewhere ; )

    Fighting dirty might make sense in certain context (bars, alleys) but does little to further intelligent discussion, when attempting to defend one’s ideas, would be my observation.

    Insofar as Mel Gibson, if he’d quit Pius X, and learn to control his anti-Semitic and misogynist rants (quit drinking) it’d be a good start whenever he might like to regenerate some credibility – again, my opinion ..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    quit drinking
     
    you go too far sir

    misogynist rants
     
    I've said worse, and I Love women
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. geokat62 says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    I had a look at some of JR's stuff floating out in cyberspace. He's a curious creature, no doubt if he could draw Phil out on 9/11 on the side of the so-called 'truthers', it'd open Phil wide to an avalanche of criticism and attacks by the vested interests while JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the 'JIDF' (speaking of trolls)

    … JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the ‘JIDF’ (speaking of trolls)

    Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    From about 1900:

    “Oho!” said the pot to the kettle;
    
“You are dirty and ugly and black!

    Sure no one would think you were metal,

    Except when you’re given a crack.”


    “Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;

    ‘Tis your own dirty image you see;
    
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
    
That your blackness is mirrored in me.”

    -Maxwell’s Elementary Grammar
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @geokat62

    ... JR meanwhile could collect a medal from the ‘JIDF’ (speaking of trolls)
     
    Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

    From about 1900:

    “Oho!” said the pot to the kettle;
    
“You are dirty and ugly and black!

    Sure no one would think you were metal,

    Except when you’re given a crack.”


    “Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;

    ‘Tis your own dirty image you see;
    
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
    
That your blackness is mirrored in me.”

    -Maxwell’s Elementary Grammar

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @amspirnational
    Notably, Ron Paul even though pressured by the Truthers, never accepted controlled demolition nor any other conspiracy theory, though I personally do not rule out Raimondo's LIHOP scenario.

    …I personally do not rule out Raimondo’s LIHOP scenario.

    LIHOP, eh? As in “Let it Happen on Purpose”. Oh, that’s total BS, man…

    The origin of the LIHOP is in so-called “conspiracy theories” regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor. There, it has merit, but applying that concept to 9/11 is a completely worthless idea — the whole idea that these people (I mean the ziocon neofascists) are planning all their wars and so on, but meanwhile, are sitting around waiting for a handful of mentally disturbed Arabs who don’t even know how to fly planes to somehow be able to hijack four airplanes in an hour and fly them into their targets, so that they can implement their plans.

    No, clearly, where it’s at is MIHOP (MADE it happen on purpose). Independent researchers have largely worked out the details of what happened. The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event.

    Self-styled “debunkers” love to claim that there is no way that an operation like this could be kept secret. And actually, they have a point! It so happens that the secret was not very well kept, which is why just about no high level person was killed at the WTC. There is plenty of evidence of people having been forewarned. Also, there was financial market activity which shows foreknowledge, The fact that none of this extensive foreknowledge of the event was ever investigated already tells you much of what you need to know about the overall false flag psy-op.

    Granted, the extensive foreknowledge of the event is equally consistent with both LIHOP and MIHOP.

    Now, the LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) theories of Pearl Harbor make perfect sense. Probably some form of LIHOP is correct in that case. (You know, the “conspiracy theory” that the U.S. had already broken the Japanese codes in 1941, and knew the attack was coming and decided to let it happen. Probably correct IMO.) But there, you have the Japanese war machine, and you are counting on them to carry out the attack for you that will be your casus belli. It makes sense to rely on the Japanese to be able to execute a Pearl Harbor attack, because these are very disciplined competent people, right? They really CAN do that shit!

    OTOH, LIHOP obviously makes no sense for 9/11 because, while you can rely on the Japanese to execute Pearl Harbor, you cannot rely on this collection of retards and misfits that have been named “Al Qaeda” to execute any damned thing. Certainly not of that scale. They lack the capability. If you need something of that scale to happen, you OBVIOUSLY have to do it yourself! Of course, this serves to highlight a basic difference between something like WW II and the “War on Terror”. In the former, the enemy really did exist! LIHOP theories can only make sense when you actually have an enemy that exists, eh? When your enemy is a fictitious construct like “Islamic terrorism”, the events have to be made to happen, MIHOP, because, otherwise, they simply WILL NOT happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Fighting dirty might make sense in certain context (bars, alleys) but does little to further intelligent discussion, when attempting to defend one's ideas, would be my observation.

    Insofar as Mel Gibson, if he'd quit Pius X, and learn to control his anti-Semitic and misogynist rants (quit drinking) it'd be a good start whenever he might like to regenerate some credibility - again, my opinion ..

    quit drinking

    you go too far sir

    misogynist rants

    I’ve said worse, and I Love women

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    You're like the 'good cop' to JR the 'bad cop.'

    Off topic, I'm surprised no one (presuming Phil's column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR's 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Rurik

    quit drinking
     
    you go too far sir

    misogynist rants
     
    I've said worse, and I Love women

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’

    Off topic, I’m surprised no one (presuming Phil’s column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR’s 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’
     
    Well, if that means, as it seems to mean, that @Rurik and I are "in cahoots" somehow, that's just plain wrong. We're not acquainted at all -- aside from the interaction in this forum, I mean obviously...

    Off topic, I’m surprised no one (presuming Phil’s column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR’s 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)
     
    I have no idea what you're talking about, Ron. You must be projecting your own nutty obsessions on me. I am not here to misinform anybody. I doubtless say things that are incorrect at times, but inadvertently. So, if there is something incorrect in what I wrote, I would really like you to point it out instead of playing these silly little games.

    If you can point out something I said that is mistaken, I will thank you for that, and I won't say that thing again, because I'll then know it's incorrect. But if you just say there's a mistake and won't tell me what it is...

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?
     
    I doubt it, Ron. I can only answer for myself. I am not at all interested in wasting my time with your silly little games. No! I seriously doubt anybody else is either.
    , @geokat62

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’
     
    Not sure if any others also feel this way, but I too had the same thought go through my mind. Something doesn't feel quite right about this. It feels like a routine. Something tells me someone is keen on disrupting the good work being done here at UR by the contributors and most of the commenters at debunking the lies being spewed by the MSM.

    Look forward to your sharing the misinformation you spotted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Ronald Thomas West
    You're like the 'good cop' to JR the 'bad cop.'

    Off topic, I'm surprised no one (presuming Phil's column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR's 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’

    Well, if that means, as it seems to mean, that and I are “in cahoots” somehow, that’s just plain wrong. We’re not acquainted at all — aside from the interaction in this forum, I mean obviously…

    Off topic, I’m surprised no one (presuming Phil’s column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR’s 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)

    I have no idea what you’re talking about, Ron. You must be projecting your own nutty obsessions on me. I am not here to misinform anybody. I doubtless say things that are incorrect at times, but inadvertently. So, if there is something incorrect in what I wrote, I would really like you to point it out instead of playing these silly little games.

    If you can point out something I said that is mistaken, I will thank you for that, and I won’t say that thing again, because I’ll then know it’s incorrect. But if you just say there’s a mistake and won’t tell me what it is…

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?

    I doubt it, Ron. I can only answer for myself. I am not at all interested in wasting my time with your silly little games. No! I seriously doubt anybody else is either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    JR wrote:

    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event
     
    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you'd not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding. Be that as it may, here's the problem with 'elevator maintenance'

    According to JR, In the weeks preceding the attacks, ‘elevator maintenance’ was the cover for preparing the twin towers for controlled demolition. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

    An emptied building a fraction of the size of only one of the towers, requires months to prepare for a controlled demolition, example given, the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. And in the case of a professional team preparing an abandoned building for demolition, there is no concern for the fact they need to access the buildings critical supports by tearing out interior walls to properly place explosives. So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years, that is unless you had an army, all trained experts in demolition, with another army of interior finishers covering up all of the holes that would have to be made to properly place the charges. All this leaving the interior decor seemingly undisturbed, so as not to be noticed. Of course, in a nutshell, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. With this problem laid out in technical detail, many, or perhaps most, perfectly reasonable people would be inclined to dismiss the twin towers having been brought down with what appears to have been military grade explosives as somewhere out there with the spoof movie (featuring Jack Nicholson) ‘Mars Attacks’ or the space weapons theory. It wouldn’t seem possible, on its face. Meanwhile, the images of the plane strikes and ensuing forces are powerful, convincing evidence to the layman, psychologically supporting what I hold are the utterly false 9/11 commission findings.

    But there are other perfectly reasonable people demand getting past the seeming impossible preparation of the towers for demolition would have actually taken years. These are the certified architects and engineers (over 2,200 to now) who understand the impossibilities of the official explanation, that is an explanation that violates known laws of physics and chemistry, for instance aviation grade kerosene (jet fuel) cannot come close to producing the necessary heat to compromise the steel support structures and even if it could, that would merely cause the buildings above the impacts and fires to topple, not bring down the entire structures in their footprints, the hallmark of a professional demolition. And then you have the thermite in the dust the government did not test for but private citizens did, with preserved samples sent into laboratories, pointing to explosives having brought the building down. The ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ have a lot going for their side, every bit as credible as the preparing the buildings for demolition over a period of years in is incredible. So, what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? An explosion.

    That explosion (more like a drone strike metaphor) would appear to be the purpose of pointing to the patently false ‘elevator maintenance’ over a period of ‘weeks’ preceding 9/11 as the period in which the towers had been prepared for demolition. It couldn’t have happened like that. And any honest demolitions expert would have to make that admission. So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR. Any well informed third party could make them both look like idiots but the plan had been to damage Phil and JR doesn’t care he looks entire stupid, he served his masters well. Perfectly reasonable people would look at the technical difficulties of preparing the buildings for demolition 'in a matter of weeks' or for that matter, how far-fetched the thought the preparation for demolition had been carries out over years and rationally conclude there is no way the building had been brought down by controlled demolition.

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments. Emotion will appeal to those wishing to believe the towers were brought down by planes and science will appeal to those who understand the physics and chemistry. In my view, science has the upper hand on the facts in this case, whereas emotion has the upper hand in what most people would prefer to believe, that is the official line. So, in the event Phil had stepped out of his ‘agnostic’ shadow on the issue of 9/11, on the side of the so-called ‘truthers’, in this case buying into the ‘elevator maintenance’ horse shit, he’d take a beating, his foolishness could be trumpeted from the mountaintops.

    But there is a powerful postscript that lines up behind the controlled demolitions theory: The building that died of fright on the afternoon of 9/11. World Trade Center Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It experienced what amounted to a minor fire that burned itself out. Building 7 then fell down, in its own footprint, just as though it were the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Essentially, Building 7 died of fright if indeed there were no controlled demolition. This is the Achilles heel of the official 9/11 account, setting aside every other event on that fateful day for liberty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. geokat62 says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    You're like the 'good cop' to JR the 'bad cop.'

    Off topic, I'm surprised no one (presuming Phil's column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR's 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’

    Not sure if any others also feel this way, but I too had the same thought go through my mind. Something doesn’t feel quite right about this. It feels like a routine. Something tells me someone is keen on disrupting the good work being done here at UR by the contributors and most of the commenters at debunking the lies being spewed by the MSM.

    Look forward to your sharing the misinformation you spotted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Now that's just silly.

    The only reason it seems to you that "something doesn't feel quite right", is because both JR and I are willing to look at the truth of what happened on 911 with open eyes. And we two are not the only ones.

    You still haven't provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven (since you seem to be suggesting there's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve the government).

    I don't say that as an accusation. You seem to me to be sincere. I just want to point out the obvious, building seven was professionally imploded/ collapsed, and that fact means that people very high up (including in the fecal government) were involved on that day and with the following cover up

    That's all
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Sam Shama
    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.

    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.

    Note to the gallery: I’m feeling very good about some of my recent participation here. It takes a while, but I feel like really getting the knack of dealing with this kind of shill scum, like Shama here.

    I mean to say, look at this guy now. I gave him such a nasty drubbing (as detailed here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1016730 ) that it now looks like he is terrified of engaging me in debate. On this page, I wrote some extensive comments about the whole “blowback” issue and he doesn’t attempt to take issue with any of it.

    Look at this poor shill scum. He’s reduced to this this kind of snotty, asinine, borderline slanderous comments about me supposedly being mentally ill. “…recidivism following therapy…” As if anybody here is interested in this blowhard’s amateur assessment of my mental health…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I was really quite curious about what powered your zeal, which I must say rivals the considerable venom and deviousness of Dominic of Aragon and Simon de Monfort, during the English Inquisitions.

    So I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine, regarding the proceedings (he read the exchange and gave me his professional opinion, together with a list of your previous activities. He did all of this pro bono). Apparently you have been at this (the 9/11 conspiracy etc.) for quite some time (in the link provided below, almost the very same exchange occurred in 2013), and your antics (including coaxing me into this fruitless debate, which Geokat warned me not to get involved in). As evidence I present a link, which offers a peek into your troubled mind.


    http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/09/11/conspiracy-distractions/

     

    Others here, do please scroll down until you find the entrance of Revusky into the theatre.

    The provisional diagnosis from the psychiatrist friend: Its a case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with shades of Paranoia

    There are therapies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Jonathan Revusky

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’
     
    Well, if that means, as it seems to mean, that @Rurik and I are "in cahoots" somehow, that's just plain wrong. We're not acquainted at all -- aside from the interaction in this forum, I mean obviously...

    Off topic, I’m surprised no one (presuming Phil’s column would draw intelligence buffs) spotted the misinformation (trap) built into JR’s 9/11 scenario (his preceding comment.)
     
    I have no idea what you're talking about, Ron. You must be projecting your own nutty obsessions on me. I am not here to misinform anybody. I doubtless say things that are incorrect at times, but inadvertently. So, if there is something incorrect in what I wrote, I would really like you to point it out instead of playing these silly little games.

    If you can point out something I said that is mistaken, I will thank you for that, and I won't say that thing again, because I'll then know it's incorrect. But if you just say there's a mistake and won't tell me what it is...

    Anyone out there up for a game of Carmen Sandiego?
     
    I doubt it, Ron. I can only answer for myself. I am not at all interested in wasting my time with your silly little games. No! I seriously doubt anybody else is either.

    JR wrote:

    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event

    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you’d not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding. Be that as it may, here’s the problem with ‘elevator maintenance’

    According to JR, In the weeks preceding the attacks, ‘elevator maintenance’ was the cover for preparing the twin towers for controlled demolition. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

    An emptied building a fraction of the size of only one of the towers, requires months to prepare for a controlled demolition, example given, the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. And in the case of a professional team preparing an abandoned building for demolition, there is no concern for the fact they need to access the buildings critical supports by tearing out interior walls to properly place explosives. So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years, that is unless you had an army, all trained experts in demolition, with another army of interior finishers covering up all of the holes that would have to be made to properly place the charges. All this leaving the interior decor seemingly undisturbed, so as not to be noticed. Of course, in a nutshell, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. With this problem laid out in technical detail, many, or perhaps most, perfectly reasonable people would be inclined to dismiss the twin towers having been brought down with what appears to have been military grade explosives as somewhere out there with the spoof movie (featuring Jack Nicholson) ‘Mars Attacks’ or the space weapons theory. It wouldn’t seem possible, on its face. Meanwhile, the images of the plane strikes and ensuing forces are powerful, convincing evidence to the layman, psychologically supporting what I hold are the utterly false 9/11 commission findings.

    But there are other perfectly reasonable people demand getting past the seeming impossible preparation of the towers for demolition would have actually taken years. These are the certified architects and engineers (over 2,200 to now) who understand the impossibilities of the official explanation, that is an explanation that violates known laws of physics and chemistry, for instance aviation grade kerosene (jet fuel) cannot come close to producing the necessary heat to compromise the steel support structures and even if it could, that would merely cause the buildings above the impacts and fires to topple, not bring down the entire structures in their footprints, the hallmark of a professional demolition. And then you have the thermite in the dust the government did not test for but private citizens did, with preserved samples sent into laboratories, pointing to explosives having brought the building down. The ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ have a lot going for their side, every bit as credible as the preparing the buildings for demolition over a period of years in is incredible. So, what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? An explosion.

    That explosion (more like a drone strike metaphor) would appear to be the purpose of pointing to the patently false ‘elevator maintenance’ over a period of ‘weeks’ preceding 9/11 as the period in which the towers had been prepared for demolition. It couldn’t have happened like that. And any honest demolitions expert would have to make that admission. So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR. Any well informed third party could make them both look like idiots but the plan had been to damage Phil and JR doesn’t care he looks entire stupid, he served his masters well. Perfectly reasonable people would look at the technical difficulties of preparing the buildings for demolition ‘in a matter of weeks’ or for that matter, how far-fetched the thought the preparation for demolition had been carries out over years and rationally conclude there is no way the building had been brought down by controlled demolition.

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments. Emotion will appeal to those wishing to believe the towers were brought down by planes and science will appeal to those who understand the physics and chemistry. In my view, science has the upper hand on the facts in this case, whereas emotion has the upper hand in what most people would prefer to believe, that is the official line. So, in the event Phil had stepped out of his ‘agnostic’ shadow on the issue of 9/11, on the side of the so-called ‘truthers’, in this case buying into the ‘elevator maintenance’ horse shit, he’d take a beating, his foolishness could be trumpeted from the mountaintops.

    But there is a powerful postscript that lines up behind the controlled demolitions theory: The building that died of fright on the afternoon of 9/11. World Trade Center Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It experienced what amounted to a minor fire that burned itself out. Building 7 then fell down, in its own footprint, just as though it were the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Essentially, Building 7 died of fright if indeed there were no controlled demolition. This is the Achilles heel of the official 9/11 account, setting aside every other event on that fateful day for liberty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky


    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event
     
    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you’d not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding.
     
    Which "classic disinformation technique" in which preceding argument, Ronald?

    This business of accusing others of things and then not detailing the accusation is very very slimy. If you have something to say, just say it. Nobody is interested in playing some game of "Where is Carmen Sandiego" with you in order to guess what it is that you are accusing somebody of.


    Be that as it may, here’s the problem with ‘elevator maintenance’
     
    Look, first of all, I was under the impression that this was more or less established. I recall in the AE911 video, the one with something like "Experts speak out" in the title, at least a couple of the experts mentioned that it was mostly about getting access to the elevator shafts. In the time preceding the event, there was maintenance work to the elevators and this is probably a key.

    But secondly, and I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance. It really isn't. You know, there is a side to the independent research community on certain topics that is extremely technical nerdy. In JFK, it's the angle of the bullet shot from the grassy knoll and so on. Finally, it doesn't matter, from the point of view of a political analysis exactly how they made these things happen. The point wrt JFK is that the Deep State gunned down a popular, elected president on the streets of a major American city in broad daylight. And they got away with it. This is an event of vast political importance. The exact angle of the bullets or what gauge firearm was used -- this is of ZERO importance in terms of an analysis of the deep politics involved.

    In the notes I've written on this page, I have pointed out (a) the extreme tenuousness of the "blowback" theory of Islamic terrorism. And (b) the utter absurdity of the LIHOP theory of 9/11, "Let It Happen On Purpose". Rather than address the actual thrust of what I am saying, i.e. LIHOP makes perfect sense for Pearl Harbor but makes no sense wrt 9/11, what you do is take a peripheral issue which is not central to the main argument I was making and try, rather pathetically, to make a big hairy deal out of it.

    Why do you do this Ronnie Boy? Why? WTF is wrong with you?

    I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about the exact details of how they prepped the towers for demolition. I lack the expertise to engage in such a discussion. Moreover, I do not believe you possess such knowledge either. So, for me to get drawn into a deep discussion of it with you is a complete and utter waste of time. I am just going to express my doubts here that you know what you're talking about. You wrote:


    So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years,
     
    Now, Ronnie Boy, I do not know for sure whether the above is true or not, but I have very great doubts solely on common sense grounds.

    I just did a quick look and I saw that the Wikipedia page on the WTC, usually the first thing one would hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

    There, it says that the WTC1, construction started in August 1968 and was completed at the end of 1970, 23 December to be exact. WTC2 construction started in January 1969 and was completed on July 19, 1971.

    In other words, it took about 2.5 years to build the buildings in the first place. The assertion that blowing up the buildings would require "years" is very odd. That's plural, years, so at least 2, sounds more like 3 or 4 years... In short, you are asserting that it takes as much or more time to blow up the buildings as it does to build them in the first place???!!!

    I don't know for sure, Ronnie Boy, but do you have some independent source for this information that we could look at? This just doesn't make any sense! It takes longer to tear something down than to build it? That is completely counter-intuitive to me and without some credible source of information to back that up, I have to say I decline to believe this. I have never heard this before, that it would take multiple years to prep these buildings for demolition. So far, I only have the say-so of some guy on the net, you.

    Meanwhile, there are people saying that I am spreading disinformation for saying that the U.S. clearly planned the war in Afghanistan before 9/11. Well, I point out that the full military operation commenced October 7, 26 days after 9/11. So, if there had been no prior planning, that means that the U.S. military was able to implement a theatre of war in Central Asia in 26 days. (Or less.) The same people who think that the U.S. military is capable of that also think that nobody in the government can blow up a building. Or if they can, it would take it would take them "years".

    My built-in bullshit detector is ringing really high now... I am not an expert in controlled demolition or military logistics, but that it takes several years to blow up a building that could be built in a couple of years and meanwhile, the U.S. military bureaucracy, with no prior planning can implement a theater of war in Central Asia in 26 days.... I'm not an expert in these matters, but I weren't born yesterday neither...


    So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR...
     
    This is very bizarre now. I never proposed any specific theory to Mr. Giraldi about the demolition of the buildings. I simply requested that he clarify his thinking. Go look at what I asked Mr. Giraldi: http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020084

    You see anything about elevator shafts there? No? Nothing?

    So WTF are you talking about, Ronnie Boy? WTF is wrong with you?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    You’re like the ‘good cop’ to JR the ‘bad cop.’
     
    Not sure if any others also feel this way, but I too had the same thought go through my mind. Something doesn't feel quite right about this. It feels like a routine. Something tells me someone is keen on disrupting the good work being done here at UR by the contributors and most of the commenters at debunking the lies being spewed by the MSM.

    Look forward to your sharing the misinformation you spotted.

    Now that’s just silly.

    The only reason it seems to you that “something doesn’t feel quite right”, is because both JR and I are willing to look at the truth of what happened on 911 with open eyes. And we two are not the only ones.

    You still haven’t provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven (since you seem to be suggesting there’s a plausible explanation that doesn’t involve the government).

    I don’t say that as an accusation. You seem to me to be sincere. I just want to point out the obvious, building seven was professionally imploded/ collapsed, and that fact means that people very high up (including in the fecal government) were involved on that day and with the following cover up

    That’s all

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    You still haven’t provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven ...
     
    As I've indicated before, no one has made a convincing case based on the preponderance of the evidence that it was gov't mfged. Regarding doubts to that effect, see RTW's latest response.
    , @geokat62

    Now that’s just silly.
     
    I wasn't necessarily implying that you were part of the routine, but something just doesn't feel quite right about the most recent arrivals to this scene.

    And we all know who the prime suspects might be - i.e., some party that would like to see this webzine rendered ineffectual.

    As I intimated earlier, something is starting to smell fishy around here!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Rurik says:

    You guys…

    Quibbling over the exact method of how the buildings were prepped for demotion. It’s a detail. It was done. The details of which are not important, unless someone is claiming that it could not have been done. Is anyone claiming that? Then why the bitter battles over the details?

    What’s obvious is that it was done, and that our government and media were complicit.

    This is a huge and important fact. It means our entire country (not to mention the entire western world) is being run by psychopaths and mass-murderers. It means that our entire media edifice, that the western world depends on to stay informed, is being controlled by fiends – who have cynically used this crime as a pretext to murder and maim millions of innocent people. That is significant. Because they’re just getting started. And if they are the type of people who are perfectly willing to slaughter 3000 Americans on that day, they sure the hell would have no qualms about slaughtering more once another false flag becomes necessary to impose their will on the world.

    These are the issues I’d like to see being bantered about. Not whether or not it took six weeks or six months to properly prepare the buildings. We already know they used weapons that the public is not privy to. Like whatever it was that disintegrated the steel you can see turning into vapor in the videos. I don’t think they typically allow those kinds of weapons to the average demolition company. So who knows what kinds of techniques are available to these people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik
    Now that's just silly.

    The only reason it seems to you that "something doesn't feel quite right", is because both JR and I are willing to look at the truth of what happened on 911 with open eyes. And we two are not the only ones.

    You still haven't provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven (since you seem to be suggesting there's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve the government).

    I don't say that as an accusation. You seem to me to be sincere. I just want to point out the obvious, building seven was professionally imploded/ collapsed, and that fact means that people very high up (including in the fecal government) were involved on that day and with the following cover up

    That's all

    You still haven’t provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven …

    As I’ve indicated before, no one has made a convincing case based on the preponderance of the evidence that it was gov’t mfged. Regarding doubts to that effect, see RTW’s latest response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Did you read RTW's response? Read the last paragraph. He's saying building seven is the smoking gun. That presumably implicates the PTB. The only ones who could have controlled everything on that day. You're a smart guy, I have to wonder...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

    Who but the gov could have given stand-down orders to NORAD and SAC?

    who but the gov had the power and motive to destroy all the evidence of the crime?

    wasn't it the gov who told everyone to pound sand when people wanted an investigation?

    the preponderance of evidence is massive!

    why don't you use your analytical mind and try to explain how the BBC was able to report on the collapse of building seven, before it happened. Just do that one thing. Or ask yourself why the Mossad agents who were filming the first plane hitting the tower (in order to "document the event") were allowed to fly home to Israel without telling anyone (in our government) how they knew the plane was going to hit and who else knew and how did they know?!

    don't you think that is the kind of information people might like to know?

    or where are all the videos from the Pentagon?

    or where is the data from the black boxes?

    ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    You still haven’t provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven ...
     
    As I've indicated before, no one has made a convincing case based on the preponderance of the evidence that it was gov't mfged. Regarding doubts to that effect, see RTW's latest response.

    Did you read RTW’s response? Read the last paragraph. He’s saying building seven is the smoking gun. That presumably implicates the PTB. The only ones who could have controlled everything on that day. You’re a smart guy, I have to wonder…

    Who but the gov could have given stand-down orders to NORAD and SAC?

    who but the gov had the power and motive to destroy all the evidence of the crime?

    wasn’t it the gov who told everyone to pound sand when people wanted an investigation?

    the preponderance of evidence is massive!

    why don’t you use your analytical mind and try to explain how the BBC was able to report on the collapse of building seven, before it happened. Just do that one thing. Or ask yourself why the Mossad agents who were filming the first plane hitting the tower (in order to “document the event”) were allowed to fly home to Israel without telling anyone (in our government) how they knew the plane was going to hit and who else knew and how did they know?!

    don’t you think that is the kind of information people might like to know?

    or where are all the videos from the Pentagon?

    or where is the data from the black boxes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Did you read RTW’s response? Read the last paragraph.
     
    I was referring to the comment he made in his second last paragraph:

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik
    Did you read RTW's response? Read the last paragraph. He's saying building seven is the smoking gun. That presumably implicates the PTB. The only ones who could have controlled everything on that day. You're a smart guy, I have to wonder...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

    Who but the gov could have given stand-down orders to NORAD and SAC?

    who but the gov had the power and motive to destroy all the evidence of the crime?

    wasn't it the gov who told everyone to pound sand when people wanted an investigation?

    the preponderance of evidence is massive!

    why don't you use your analytical mind and try to explain how the BBC was able to report on the collapse of building seven, before it happened. Just do that one thing. Or ask yourself why the Mossad agents who were filming the first plane hitting the tower (in order to "document the event") were allowed to fly home to Israel without telling anyone (in our government) how they knew the plane was going to hit and who else knew and how did they know?!

    don't you think that is the kind of information people might like to know?

    or where are all the videos from the Pentagon?

    or where is the data from the black boxes?

    ...

    Did you read RTW’s response? Read the last paragraph.

    I was referring to the comment he made in his second last paragraph:

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.
     
    bull biscuits

    the official narrative is absurd

    Just answer this one question; why didn't the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?

    They were torturing people right and left, often times even to death, presumably to find out who had committed this heinous act, and here we had some Middle Easterners who knew it was going to happen, and were filming the first plane as it struck, and thereupon began dancing and high-fiving each other to the extent that citizens called the authorities and had them arrested, and what does the fecal government do? Do they ask them politely how they knew it was going to go down? Did they ask them impolitely? Or did they just apologize for any inconvenience and send them back to Israel with first class tickets?

    Perhaps letting them go and forgetting to ask them was just a "failure of imagination"? Eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I cannot isolate a single word or phrase you wrote above, for any disagreement or qualification. Perhaps, if one were to add a small observation, it might be that his choleric and bilious behaviour, is entirely consistent with recidivism following therapy.

     

    Note to the gallery: I'm feeling very good about some of my recent participation here. It takes a while, but I feel like really getting the knack of dealing with this kind of shill scum, like Shama here.

    I mean to say, look at this guy now. I gave him such a nasty drubbing (as detailed here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1016730 ) that it now looks like he is terrified of engaging me in debate. On this page, I wrote some extensive comments about the whole "blowback" issue and he doesn't attempt to take issue with any of it.

    Look at this poor shill scum. He's reduced to this this kind of snotty, asinine, borderline slanderous comments about me supposedly being mentally ill. "...recidivism following therapy..." As if anybody here is interested in this blowhard's amateur assessment of my mental health...

    I was really quite curious about what powered your zeal, which I must say rivals the considerable venom and deviousness of Dominic of Aragon and Simon de Monfort, during the English Inquisitions.

    So I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine, regarding the proceedings (he read the exchange and gave me his professional opinion, together with a list of your previous activities. He did all of this pro bono). Apparently you have been at this (the 9/11 conspiracy etc.) for quite some time (in the link provided below, almost the very same exchange occurred in 2013), and your antics (including coaxing me into this fruitless debate, which Geokat warned me not to get involved in). As evidence I present a link, which offers a peek into your troubled mind.

    http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/09/11/conspiracy-distractions/

    Others here, do please scroll down until you find the entrance of Revusky into the theatre.

    The provisional diagnosis from the psychiatrist friend: Its a case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with shades of Paranoia

    There are therapies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    One thing I've been wondering about is what kind of "moderation" is going on for the comments here. Every time I post, I get the feedback that "Your comment is in moderation.." and ultimately it goes through. But I have no idea what the criteria are. I don't think any comment of mine was ever rejected.

    What we have here, the comment I'm replying to, is something that makes absolutely no attempt to further the discussion. It's just a personal attack on another participant, me in this case. You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, because it contains absolutely no attempt to further any constructive discussion about anything.

    Well, I guess it must be that as long as the comment is not hawking penis enlargement pills or something like that, then it is approved.

    I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine,
     
    That's interesting Sammy. Just out of curiosity, what nationality is this friend of yours? Where did he study medicine?

    Also, Sam, this friend of yours... when you go out for a beer with him, can the other people in the pub see him? Or are you the only one who sees him?

    Anyway, Sammy boy, I asked you what the proof of the government's 9/11 story was and at one point you pointed me to a page that was a summary of the government's 9/11 story. So, apparently, you think that the government's narrative is proof of the government's narrative. Well, okay, if you think that, I guess it is understandable that you could think that the psychiatric diagnosis of your imaginary friend is also proof of something.

    But, look, even if I conceded, just for the sake of argument that I actually am mad as a hatter, that doesn't mean, in and of itself, that any specific thing I say is incorrect, does it? And specifically, when I point out to you that the government's story is NOT proof of the government's story, and your "rebuttal" to this is to speculate about my mental health... I don't think that if there was any sort of serious "moderation" going on here, this kind of stuff should be let through.

    If somebody doesn't address factually or logically anything the other person is saying and just starts this silliness with imaginary shrink friends making diagnoses... I don't even know why you demean yourself this way actually. Maybe you're just getting paid by the comment or have a daily quota you have to meet or something. I have no idea...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Did you read RTW’s response? Read the last paragraph.
     
    I was referring to the comment he made in his second last paragraph:

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.
     

    Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.

    bull biscuits

    the official narrative is absurd

    Just answer this one question; why didn’t the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?

    They were torturing people right and left, often times even to death, presumably to find out who had committed this heinous act, and here we had some Middle Easterners who knew it was going to happen, and were filming the first plane as it struck, and thereupon began dancing and high-fiving each other to the extent that citizens called the authorities and had them arrested, and what does the fecal government do? Do they ask them politely how they knew it was going to go down? Did they ask them impolitely? Or did they just apologize for any inconvenience and send them back to Israel with first class tickets?

    Perhaps letting them go and forgetting to ask them was just a “failure of imagination”? Eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Just answer this one question; why didn’t the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?
     
    As I've indicated before, I am in complete agreement with the assertion that the Israelis had foreknowledge about the attacks, but did not share it. If you look back at my posts, you'll find that I even provided a link to a video about the five dancing Israelis. They were interrogated while held in custody but were somehow released after pressure was applied by higher ups.

    Not sure why we're rehashing this.
    , @Sam Shama
    HWhen I watched the israeli show where Yair Lapid interviews the ,"dancing Israelis" these characters were saying that they rushed from the West Side highway to Jersey City until they found a great view of the already in progress conflagration. They said that they were there to "document the event" as in a news scoop.

    These men imho were low level Mossad moles spying on the local Arab community. The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans. So had the Egyptians and the British. I think this was known pretty well.

    What is the evidence (circumstantial?) that they had perfect foreknowledge? Or that they were involved, other than an appeal to previous false flags?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik
    Now that's just silly.

    The only reason it seems to you that "something doesn't feel quite right", is because both JR and I are willing to look at the truth of what happened on 911 with open eyes. And we two are not the only ones.

    You still haven't provided an explanation for the implosion of building seven (since you seem to be suggesting there's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve the government).

    I don't say that as an accusation. You seem to me to be sincere. I just want to point out the obvious, building seven was professionally imploded/ collapsed, and that fact means that people very high up (including in the fecal government) were involved on that day and with the following cover up

    That's all

    Now that’s just silly.

    I wasn’t necessarily implying that you were part of the routine, but something just doesn’t feel quite right about the most recent arrivals to this scene.

    And we all know who the prime suspects might be – i.e., some party that would like to see this webzine rendered ineffectual.

    As I intimated earlier, something is starting to smell fishy around here!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    ROTFL.

    ahem:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1013037

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-993823

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-993823

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-992566

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-994510

    Was it the same fish that you were debating? I am beginning to entertain serious doubts about someone's integrity which I previously believed in. Does not matter much.
    , @Sam Shama
    Also:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1008947

    more selective olfactory amnesia re: the fish? (I know, I know....intellect, which tends to be rare, is prized by Balliolites! Hypocrisy, rather less)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.
     
    bull biscuits

    the official narrative is absurd

    Just answer this one question; why didn't the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?

    They were torturing people right and left, often times even to death, presumably to find out who had committed this heinous act, and here we had some Middle Easterners who knew it was going to happen, and were filming the first plane as it struck, and thereupon began dancing and high-fiving each other to the extent that citizens called the authorities and had them arrested, and what does the fecal government do? Do they ask them politely how they knew it was going to go down? Did they ask them impolitely? Or did they just apologize for any inconvenience and send them back to Israel with first class tickets?

    Perhaps letting them go and forgetting to ask them was just a "failure of imagination"? Eh?

    Just answer this one question; why didn’t the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?

    As I’ve indicated before, I am in complete agreement with the assertion that the Israelis had foreknowledge about the attacks, but did not share it. If you look back at my posts, you’ll find that I even provided a link to a video about the five dancing Israelis. They were interrogated while held in custody but were somehow released after pressure was applied by higher ups.

    Not sure why we’re rehashing this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Not sure why we’re rehashing this.
     
    would your sentiments on the subject tend to mirror the gentleman in the video?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI


    The reason, IMHO that we should care 'who killed who', is because the people who did the killing are still holding the sword. As long as the American people let these psychopaths get away with lying us into wars and false flags, they're just going to keep them coming. And it's only a matter of time before they do it again. It's just like with all their financial mega-swindles. The S&L mass looting. The 2008 derivatives / sub-prime mass looting. And so on. Since they're able to get away with all of these things every time, WACO, lied about wars, mass-murdering false flags, overt looting of the US Treasury... they're just going to keep doing them.

    My suggestion is that us bovine, cud-chewing sheep who they've come to count on acting like bovine, cud-chewers, is that we lift up our heads from the pasture and act like men for once in our lives, and tell our rapacious tormentors 'no more!'

    And the first place to start, is by caring 'who killed who'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Now that’s just silly.
     
    I wasn't necessarily implying that you were part of the routine, but something just doesn't feel quite right about the most recent arrivals to this scene.

    And we all know who the prime suspects might be - i.e., some party that would like to see this webzine rendered ineffectual.

    As I intimated earlier, something is starting to smell fishy around here!
    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Was it the same fish that you were debating?
     
    What makes you so sure I was referring to you, old chap, and not your alter ego JR?

    You both like to make references to the stage - e.g., Exuant geokat; in this case incorrectly as this term applies when more than one character leaves the stage!

    A Balliolite, my arse!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Now that’s just silly.
     
    I wasn't necessarily implying that you were part of the routine, but something just doesn't feel quite right about the most recent arrivals to this scene.

    And we all know who the prime suspects might be - i.e., some party that would like to see this webzine rendered ineffectual.

    As I intimated earlier, something is starting to smell fishy around here!

    Also:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1008947

    more selective olfactory amnesia re: the fish? (I know, I know….intellect, which tends to be rare, is prized by Balliolites! Hypocrisy, rather less)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    ROTFL.

    ahem:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1013037

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-993823

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-993823

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-992566

    http://www.unz.com/article/crunch-time-with-iran/#comment-994510

    Was it the same fish that you were debating? I am beginning to entertain serious doubts about someone's integrity which I previously believed in. Does not matter much.

    Was it the same fish that you were debating?

    What makes you so sure I was referring to you, old chap, and not your alter ego JR?

    You both like to make references to the stage – e.g., Exuant geokat; in this case incorrectly as this term applies when more than one character leaves the stage!

    A Balliolite, my arse!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    My alter ego??!! Are you taking the piss? (I always suspected you were a Brit!!)

    But no, I am not that crazy bugger at all.

    Well my mistake and apologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Was it the same fish that you were debating?
     
    What makes you so sure I was referring to you, old chap, and not your alter ego JR?

    You both like to make references to the stage - e.g., Exuant geokat; in this case incorrectly as this term applies when more than one character leaves the stage!

    A Balliolite, my arse!

    My alter ego??!! Are you taking the piss? (I always suspected you were a Brit!!)

    But no, I am not that crazy bugger at all.

    Well my mistake and apologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments.
     
    bull biscuits

    the official narrative is absurd

    Just answer this one question; why didn't the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?

    They were torturing people right and left, often times even to death, presumably to find out who had committed this heinous act, and here we had some Middle Easterners who knew it was going to happen, and were filming the first plane as it struck, and thereupon began dancing and high-fiving each other to the extent that citizens called the authorities and had them arrested, and what does the fecal government do? Do they ask them politely how they knew it was going to go down? Did they ask them impolitely? Or did they just apologize for any inconvenience and send them back to Israel with first class tickets?

    Perhaps letting them go and forgetting to ask them was just a "failure of imagination"? Eh?

    HWhen I watched the israeli show where Yair Lapid interviews the ,”dancing Israelis” these characters were saying that they rushed from the West Side highway to Jersey City until they found a great view of the already in progress conflagration. They said that they were there to “document the event” as in a news scoop.

    These men imho were low level Mossad moles spying on the local Arab community. The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans. So had the Egyptians and the British. I think this was known pretty well.

    What is the evidence (circumstantial?) that they had perfect foreknowledge? Or that they were involved, other than an appeal to previous false flags?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    of the already in progress ...
     
    they had their equipment set up before the first plane hit

    “document the event” as in a news scoop.
     
    they weren't journalists, they were Mossad agents

    The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans.
     
    Some Americans. The rest of the Americans, like the ones working in the second tower were told to return to their work stations after the first plane hit. They were all told there was no danger and to return to work. Lucky Larry wanted as many of his tenants, (the unimportant ones anyways who had not been warned) to be slaughtered in the conflagration. It was "very good", as Bibi put it, that so many died on that day. The more deaths, the more outrage at Israel's enemies.

    So yes, some Americans were warned. Giuliani, Ashcroft.. many others. And then again some specifically- were not warned.
    , @KA
    "The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

    ""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html

    That's what Mossad did. They threw sands at the US intelligence by making the association between Iraq and Al Qiada. This piece of I telligence will be highly uspect to US and it shouldn't have been lost to Israel.
    Obviously US didn't buy the assessment and ignored the warning.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Ronald Thomas West
    JR wrote:

    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event
     
    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you'd not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding. Be that as it may, here's the problem with 'elevator maintenance'

    According to JR, In the weeks preceding the attacks, ‘elevator maintenance’ was the cover for preparing the twin towers for controlled demolition. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

    An emptied building a fraction of the size of only one of the towers, requires months to prepare for a controlled demolition, example given, the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. And in the case of a professional team preparing an abandoned building for demolition, there is no concern for the fact they need to access the buildings critical supports by tearing out interior walls to properly place explosives. So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years, that is unless you had an army, all trained experts in demolition, with another army of interior finishers covering up all of the holes that would have to be made to properly place the charges. All this leaving the interior decor seemingly undisturbed, so as not to be noticed. Of course, in a nutshell, that scenario seems pretty far fetched. With this problem laid out in technical detail, many, or perhaps most, perfectly reasonable people would be inclined to dismiss the twin towers having been brought down with what appears to have been military grade explosives as somewhere out there with the spoof movie (featuring Jack Nicholson) ‘Mars Attacks’ or the space weapons theory. It wouldn’t seem possible, on its face. Meanwhile, the images of the plane strikes and ensuing forces are powerful, convincing evidence to the layman, psychologically supporting what I hold are the utterly false 9/11 commission findings.

    But there are other perfectly reasonable people demand getting past the seeming impossible preparation of the towers for demolition would have actually taken years. These are the certified architects and engineers (over 2,200 to now) who understand the impossibilities of the official explanation, that is an explanation that violates known laws of physics and chemistry, for instance aviation grade kerosene (jet fuel) cannot come close to producing the necessary heat to compromise the steel support structures and even if it could, that would merely cause the buildings above the impacts and fires to topple, not bring down the entire structures in their footprints, the hallmark of a professional demolition. And then you have the thermite in the dust the government did not test for but private citizens did, with preserved samples sent into laboratories, pointing to explosives having brought the building down. The ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ have a lot going for their side, every bit as credible as the preparing the buildings for demolition over a period of years in is incredible. So, what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? An explosion.

    That explosion (more like a drone strike metaphor) would appear to be the purpose of pointing to the patently false ‘elevator maintenance’ over a period of ‘weeks’ preceding 9/11 as the period in which the towers had been prepared for demolition. It couldn’t have happened like that. And any honest demolitions expert would have to make that admission. So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR. Any well informed third party could make them both look like idiots but the plan had been to damage Phil and JR doesn’t care he looks entire stupid, he served his masters well. Perfectly reasonable people would look at the technical difficulties of preparing the buildings for demolition 'in a matter of weeks' or for that matter, how far-fetched the thought the preparation for demolition had been carries out over years and rationally conclude there is no way the building had been brought down by controlled demolition.

    So, what had actually happened with the twin towers? The honest answer is ‘we don’t know.’ Both sides would appear to have powerful arguments. Emotion will appeal to those wishing to believe the towers were brought down by planes and science will appeal to those who understand the physics and chemistry. In my view, science has the upper hand on the facts in this case, whereas emotion has the upper hand in what most people would prefer to believe, that is the official line. So, in the event Phil had stepped out of his ‘agnostic’ shadow on the issue of 9/11, on the side of the so-called ‘truthers’, in this case buying into the ‘elevator maintenance’ horse shit, he’d take a beating, his foolishness could be trumpeted from the mountaintops.

    But there is a powerful postscript that lines up behind the controlled demolitions theory: The building that died of fright on the afternoon of 9/11. World Trade Center Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It experienced what amounted to a minor fire that burned itself out. Building 7 then fell down, in its own footprint, just as though it were the old MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Essentially, Building 7 died of fright if indeed there were no controlled demolition. This is the Achilles heel of the official 9/11 account, setting aside every other event on that fateful day for liberty.

    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event

    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you’d not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding.

    Which “classic disinformation technique” in which preceding argument, Ronald?

    This business of accusing others of things and then not detailing the accusation is very very slimy. If you have something to say, just say it. Nobody is interested in playing some game of “Where is Carmen Sandiego” with you in order to guess what it is that you are accusing somebody of.

    Be that as it may, here’s the problem with ‘elevator maintenance’

    Look, first of all, I was under the impression that this was more or less established. I recall in the AE911 video, the one with something like “Experts speak out” in the title, at least a couple of the experts mentioned that it was mostly about getting access to the elevator shafts. In the time preceding the event, there was maintenance work to the elevators and this is probably a key.

    But secondly, and I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance. It really isn’t. You know, there is a side to the independent research community on certain topics that is extremely technical nerdy. In JFK, it’s the angle of the bullet shot from the grassy knoll and so on. Finally, it doesn’t matter, from the point of view of a political analysis exactly how they made these things happen. The point wrt JFK is that the Deep State gunned down a popular, elected president on the streets of a major American city in broad daylight. And they got away with it. This is an event of vast political importance. The exact angle of the bullets or what gauge firearm was used — this is of ZERO importance in terms of an analysis of the deep politics involved.

    In the notes I’ve written on this page, I have pointed out (a) the extreme tenuousness of the “blowback” theory of Islamic terrorism. And (b) the utter absurdity of the LIHOP theory of 9/11, “Let It Happen On Purpose”. Rather than address the actual thrust of what I am saying, i.e. LIHOP makes perfect sense for Pearl Harbor but makes no sense wrt 9/11, what you do is take a peripheral issue which is not central to the main argument I was making and try, rather pathetically, to make a big hairy deal out of it.

    Why do you do this Ronnie Boy? Why? WTF is wrong with you?

    I’m not going to get drawn into a debate about the exact details of how they prepped the towers for demolition. I lack the expertise to engage in such a discussion. Moreover, I do not believe you possess such knowledge either. So, for me to get drawn into a deep discussion of it with you is a complete and utter waste of time. I am just going to express my doubts here that you know what you’re talking about. You wrote:

    So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years,

    Now, Ronnie Boy, I do not know for sure whether the above is true or not, but I have very great doubts solely on common sense grounds.

    I just did a quick look and I saw that the Wikipedia page on the WTC, usually the first thing one would hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

    There, it says that the WTC1, construction started in August 1968 and was completed at the end of 1970, 23 December to be exact. WTC2 construction started in January 1969 and was completed on July 19, 1971.

    In other words, it took about 2.5 years to build the buildings in the first place. The assertion that blowing up the buildings would require “years” is very odd. That’s plural, years, so at least 2, sounds more like 3 or 4 years… In short, you are asserting that it takes as much or more time to blow up the buildings as it does to build them in the first place???!!!

    I don’t know for sure, Ronnie Boy, but do you have some independent source for this information that we could look at? This just doesn’t make any sense! It takes longer to tear something down than to build it? That is completely counter-intuitive to me and without some credible source of information to back that up, I have to say I decline to believe this. I have never heard this before, that it would take multiple years to prep these buildings for demolition. So far, I only have the say-so of some guy on the net, you.

    Meanwhile, there are people saying that I am spreading disinformation for saying that the U.S. clearly planned the war in Afghanistan before 9/11. Well, I point out that the full military operation commenced October 7, 26 days after 9/11. So, if there had been no prior planning, that means that the U.S. military was able to implement a theatre of war in Central Asia in 26 days. (Or less.) The same people who think that the U.S. military is capable of that also think that nobody in the government can blow up a building. Or if they can, it would take it would take them “years”.

    My built-in bullshit detector is ringing really high now… I am not an expert in controlled demolition or military logistics, but that it takes several years to blow up a building that could be built in a couple of years and meanwhile, the U.S. military bureaucracy, with no prior planning can implement a theater of war in Central Asia in 26 days…. I’m not an expert in these matters, but I weren’t born yesterday neither…

    So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR…

    This is very bizarre now. I never proposed any specific theory to Mr. Giraldi about the demolition of the buildings. I simply requested that he clarify his thinking. Go look at what I asked Mr. Giraldi: http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020084

    You see anything about elevator shafts there? No? Nothing?

    So WTF are you talking about, Ronnie Boy? WTF is wrong with you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... and without some credible source of information to back that up, I have to say I decline to believe this.
     
    Wise counsel!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Sam Shama
    I was really quite curious about what powered your zeal, which I must say rivals the considerable venom and deviousness of Dominic of Aragon and Simon de Monfort, during the English Inquisitions.

    So I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine, regarding the proceedings (he read the exchange and gave me his professional opinion, together with a list of your previous activities. He did all of this pro bono). Apparently you have been at this (the 9/11 conspiracy etc.) for quite some time (in the link provided below, almost the very same exchange occurred in 2013), and your antics (including coaxing me into this fruitless debate, which Geokat warned me not to get involved in). As evidence I present a link, which offers a peek into your troubled mind.


    http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/09/11/conspiracy-distractions/

     

    Others here, do please scroll down until you find the entrance of Revusky into the theatre.

    The provisional diagnosis from the psychiatrist friend: Its a case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with shades of Paranoia

    There are therapies.

    One thing I’ve been wondering about is what kind of “moderation” is going on for the comments here. Every time I post, I get the feedback that “Your comment is in moderation..” and ultimately it goes through. But I have no idea what the criteria are. I don’t think any comment of mine was ever rejected.

    What we have here, the comment I’m replying to, is something that makes absolutely no attempt to further the discussion. It’s just a personal attack on another participant, me in this case. You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, because it contains absolutely no attempt to further any constructive discussion about anything.

    Well, I guess it must be that as long as the comment is not hawking penis enlargement pills or something like that, then it is approved.

    I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine,

    That’s interesting Sammy. Just out of curiosity, what nationality is this friend of yours? Where did he study medicine?

    Also, Sam, this friend of yours… when you go out for a beer with him, can the other people in the pub see him? Or are you the only one who sees him?

    Anyway, Sammy boy, I asked you what the proof of the government’s 9/11 story was and at one point you pointed me to a page that was a summary of the government’s 9/11 story. So, apparently, you think that the government’s narrative is proof of the government’s narrative. Well, okay, if you think that, I guess it is understandable that you could think that the psychiatric diagnosis of your imaginary friend is also proof of something.

    But, look, even if I conceded, just for the sake of argument that I actually am mad as a hatter, that doesn’t mean, in and of itself, that any specific thing I say is incorrect, does it? And specifically, when I point out to you that the government’s story is NOT proof of the government’s story, and your “rebuttal” to this is to speculate about my mental health… I don’t think that if there was any sort of serious “moderation” going on here, this kind of stuff should be let through.

    If somebody doesn’t address factually or logically anything the other person is saying and just starts this silliness with imaginary shrink friends making diagnoses… I don’t even know why you demean yourself this way actually. Maybe you’re just getting paid by the comment or have a daily quota you have to meet or something. I have no idea…

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, ...
     
    The real purpose of the recent arrivals is slowly, but surely, starting to be revealed!

    Let's see where they go with this. I recommend keeping a watchful eye.
    , @Sam Shama
    Its no imaginary friend. Every bit of my post is true. I don't bear any hostility towards you. If you go back to your own posts, and mine, you will find the extent of your (for the lack of a better term) verbal diarrhea, name calling etc. Whether you think you and your antagonist initially entered into a "debate in good faith" or not, you turned it into a "debate in good filth". I have no interest in that.

    The psychiatrist friend is real and practices in NYC, with a degree from one of the very top U.S institutions. If you have a shred of normalcy intact, you must know (given your almost identical modus operandi, from the link I provided above) that you have been engaged in dueling the 9/11 issue since at least 2013, apparently bereft of any satisfaction. That should tell you something, and you might consider (with help, which is available) disengaging from the cycle of obsessive behaviour.

    Shabbat Shalom

    , @Ronald Thomas West
    Note to Sam Shama

    I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance
     
    There is no therapy fix for this preceding-

    Meanwhile, for the rest, here's the closest I've come to lampooning something similar to JR's philosophy:

    What is
    Had ought
    Not
    Wish
    To wash

    David Hume’s impossible postulation…

    “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason”

    …is summed up in Western ethics as ‘Hume’s guillotine’ or the ‘ought-is problem.’ Now, forgive my naiveté when faced with this immutable Western dilemma of philosophy where the ‘ought-is problem‘ is posed…

    “how, exactly can an “ought” be derived from an “is”? The question, prompted by Hume’s small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory”

    …as it occurs in my small universe if my ass IS dirty I had OUGHT to wash it. Correct? Or, if it is in the natural order of things one were to have a dirty ass as a matter of fact, expectation and normalcy, and those hairy-assed little shit-balls, quaintly know as ‘dingle-berries’ in the vulgar tongue, must endure .. would it be a violation of IS to pull them out? Had one OUGHT *NOT* do that? What I’m getting at is, there was this time during my progressing baldness I had my head waxed to remove what amounted to an annoying residual fuzz. Now, it’d never occurred to me (previous to faced with Hume’s ‘ought-is problem’) hairy people OUGHT to have an ass-wax-job, but now this seems a logical progression from dirty ass as a result of hairy ass-crack, or that is an IS to an OUGHT.

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/david-hume/
     
    Conceding in JR's case Hume may also have had it right - or that is to say JR could not tell the difference, or make a connection between, an IS and an OUGHT
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky


    The buildings were rigged for demolition under cover of elevator maintenance work in the weeks prior to the event
     
    Well, JR, I could believe that was an innocent mistake if you’d not employed classic disinformation technique in your arguments preceding.
     
    Which "classic disinformation technique" in which preceding argument, Ronald?

    This business of accusing others of things and then not detailing the accusation is very very slimy. If you have something to say, just say it. Nobody is interested in playing some game of "Where is Carmen Sandiego" with you in order to guess what it is that you are accusing somebody of.


    Be that as it may, here’s the problem with ‘elevator maintenance’
     
    Look, first of all, I was under the impression that this was more or less established. I recall in the AE911 video, the one with something like "Experts speak out" in the title, at least a couple of the experts mentioned that it was mostly about getting access to the elevator shafts. In the time preceding the event, there was maintenance work to the elevators and this is probably a key.

    But secondly, and I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance. It really isn't. You know, there is a side to the independent research community on certain topics that is extremely technical nerdy. In JFK, it's the angle of the bullet shot from the grassy knoll and so on. Finally, it doesn't matter, from the point of view of a political analysis exactly how they made these things happen. The point wrt JFK is that the Deep State gunned down a popular, elected president on the streets of a major American city in broad daylight. And they got away with it. This is an event of vast political importance. The exact angle of the bullets or what gauge firearm was used -- this is of ZERO importance in terms of an analysis of the deep politics involved.

    In the notes I've written on this page, I have pointed out (a) the extreme tenuousness of the "blowback" theory of Islamic terrorism. And (b) the utter absurdity of the LIHOP theory of 9/11, "Let It Happen On Purpose". Rather than address the actual thrust of what I am saying, i.e. LIHOP makes perfect sense for Pearl Harbor but makes no sense wrt 9/11, what you do is take a peripheral issue which is not central to the main argument I was making and try, rather pathetically, to make a big hairy deal out of it.

    Why do you do this Ronnie Boy? Why? WTF is wrong with you?

    I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about the exact details of how they prepped the towers for demolition. I lack the expertise to engage in such a discussion. Moreover, I do not believe you possess such knowledge either. So, for me to get drawn into a deep discussion of it with you is a complete and utter waste of time. I am just going to express my doubts here that you know what you're talking about. You wrote:


    So, preparing of the twin towers could have easily taken years,
     
    Now, Ronnie Boy, I do not know for sure whether the above is true or not, but I have very great doubts solely on common sense grounds.

    I just did a quick look and I saw that the Wikipedia page on the WTC, usually the first thing one would hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

    There, it says that the WTC1, construction started in August 1968 and was completed at the end of 1970, 23 December to be exact. WTC2 construction started in January 1969 and was completed on July 19, 1971.

    In other words, it took about 2.5 years to build the buildings in the first place. The assertion that blowing up the buildings would require "years" is very odd. That's plural, years, so at least 2, sounds more like 3 or 4 years... In short, you are asserting that it takes as much or more time to blow up the buildings as it does to build them in the first place???!!!

    I don't know for sure, Ronnie Boy, but do you have some independent source for this information that we could look at? This just doesn't make any sense! It takes longer to tear something down than to build it? That is completely counter-intuitive to me and without some credible source of information to back that up, I have to say I decline to believe this. I have never heard this before, that it would take multiple years to prep these buildings for demolition. So far, I only have the say-so of some guy on the net, you.

    Meanwhile, there are people saying that I am spreading disinformation for saying that the U.S. clearly planned the war in Afghanistan before 9/11. Well, I point out that the full military operation commenced October 7, 26 days after 9/11. So, if there had been no prior planning, that means that the U.S. military was able to implement a theatre of war in Central Asia in 26 days. (Or less.) The same people who think that the U.S. military is capable of that also think that nobody in the government can blow up a building. Or if they can, it would take it would take them "years".

    My built-in bullshit detector is ringing really high now... I am not an expert in controlled demolition or military logistics, but that it takes several years to blow up a building that could be built in a couple of years and meanwhile, the U.S. military bureaucracy, with no prior planning can implement a theater of war in Central Asia in 26 days.... I'm not an expert in these matters, but I weren't born yesterday neither...


    So, suppose Phil had been sucked into the theory proposed by JR...
     
    This is very bizarre now. I never proposed any specific theory to Mr. Giraldi about the demolition of the buildings. I simply requested that he clarify his thinking. Go look at what I asked Mr. Giraldi: http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020084

    You see anything about elevator shafts there? No? Nothing?

    So WTF are you talking about, Ronnie Boy? WTF is wrong with you?

    … and without some credible source of information to back that up, I have to say I decline to believe this.

    Wise counsel!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    One thing I've been wondering about is what kind of "moderation" is going on for the comments here. Every time I post, I get the feedback that "Your comment is in moderation.." and ultimately it goes through. But I have no idea what the criteria are. I don't think any comment of mine was ever rejected.

    What we have here, the comment I'm replying to, is something that makes absolutely no attempt to further the discussion. It's just a personal attack on another participant, me in this case. You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, because it contains absolutely no attempt to further any constructive discussion about anything.

    Well, I guess it must be that as long as the comment is not hawking penis enlargement pills or something like that, then it is approved.

    I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine,
     
    That's interesting Sammy. Just out of curiosity, what nationality is this friend of yours? Where did he study medicine?

    Also, Sam, this friend of yours... when you go out for a beer with him, can the other people in the pub see him? Or are you the only one who sees him?

    Anyway, Sammy boy, I asked you what the proof of the government's 9/11 story was and at one point you pointed me to a page that was a summary of the government's 9/11 story. So, apparently, you think that the government's narrative is proof of the government's narrative. Well, okay, if you think that, I guess it is understandable that you could think that the psychiatric diagnosis of your imaginary friend is also proof of something.

    But, look, even if I conceded, just for the sake of argument that I actually am mad as a hatter, that doesn't mean, in and of itself, that any specific thing I say is incorrect, does it? And specifically, when I point out to you that the government's story is NOT proof of the government's story, and your "rebuttal" to this is to speculate about my mental health... I don't think that if there was any sort of serious "moderation" going on here, this kind of stuff should be let through.

    If somebody doesn't address factually or logically anything the other person is saying and just starts this silliness with imaginary shrink friends making diagnoses... I don't even know why you demean yourself this way actually. Maybe you're just getting paid by the comment or have a daily quota you have to meet or something. I have no idea...

    You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, …

    The real purpose of the recent arrivals is slowly, but surely, starting to be revealed!

    Let’s see where they go with this. I recommend keeping a watchful eye.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    One thing I've been wondering about is what kind of "moderation" is going on for the comments here. Every time I post, I get the feedback that "Your comment is in moderation.." and ultimately it goes through. But I have no idea what the criteria are. I don't think any comment of mine was ever rejected.

    What we have here, the comment I'm replying to, is something that makes absolutely no attempt to further the discussion. It's just a personal attack on another participant, me in this case. You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, because it contains absolutely no attempt to further any constructive discussion about anything.

    Well, I guess it must be that as long as the comment is not hawking penis enlargement pills or something like that, then it is approved.

    I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine,
     
    That's interesting Sammy. Just out of curiosity, what nationality is this friend of yours? Where did he study medicine?

    Also, Sam, this friend of yours... when you go out for a beer with him, can the other people in the pub see him? Or are you the only one who sees him?

    Anyway, Sammy boy, I asked you what the proof of the government's 9/11 story was and at one point you pointed me to a page that was a summary of the government's 9/11 story. So, apparently, you think that the government's narrative is proof of the government's narrative. Well, okay, if you think that, I guess it is understandable that you could think that the psychiatric diagnosis of your imaginary friend is also proof of something.

    But, look, even if I conceded, just for the sake of argument that I actually am mad as a hatter, that doesn't mean, in and of itself, that any specific thing I say is incorrect, does it? And specifically, when I point out to you that the government's story is NOT proof of the government's story, and your "rebuttal" to this is to speculate about my mental health... I don't think that if there was any sort of serious "moderation" going on here, this kind of stuff should be let through.

    If somebody doesn't address factually or logically anything the other person is saying and just starts this silliness with imaginary shrink friends making diagnoses... I don't even know why you demean yourself this way actually. Maybe you're just getting paid by the comment or have a daily quota you have to meet or something. I have no idea...

    Its no imaginary friend. Every bit of my post is true. I don’t bear any hostility towards you. If you go back to your own posts, and mine, you will find the extent of your (for the lack of a better term) verbal diarrhea, name calling etc. Whether you think you and your antagonist initially entered into a “debate in good faith” or not, you turned it into a “debate in good filth”. I have no interest in that.

    The psychiatrist friend is real and practices in NYC, with a degree from one of the very top U.S institutions. If you have a shred of normalcy intact, you must know (given your almost identical modus operandi, from the link I provided above) that you have been engaged in dueling the 9/11 issue since at least 2013, apparently bereft of any satisfaction. That should tell you something, and you might consider (with help, which is available) disengaging from the cycle of obsessive behaviour.

    Shabbat Shalom

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Its no imaginary friend. Every bit of my post is true.
     
    LOL! Yeah, and I guess, if I ask you for proof, you'll point back to the original message where you claim this! Just like the 9/11 commission report is proof of the 9/11 commission report.

    The psychiatrist friend is real and practices in NYC, with a degree from one of the very top U.S institutions.
     
    So this prestigious ivy league educated shrink agreed pro bono to diagnose my mental health based on my writings on this site and maybe another one or two places.

    Did you ask him to diagnose anybody else's mental health pro bono? Only me? To what do I owe the honor?

    How extraordinary.... And he did this valuable work for free! One clarification: did you offer to pay him his going rate, but he then declined?

    Hold on! I've got it! You must have offered him some "blowback"!

    C'mon, look, Sam. Everybody here knows that you just made this story up. And what's further incredible is that surely you know that everybody knows you're lying, yet you just keep gamely on with this! Why would anybody do this? Okay, it's just a virtual forum, so you don't have to show your face, but still.... this is so demeaning, isn't it? Why continue with this? Why not just walk away?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Jonathan Revusky
    One thing I've been wondering about is what kind of "moderation" is going on for the comments here. Every time I post, I get the feedback that "Your comment is in moderation.." and ultimately it goes through. But I have no idea what the criteria are. I don't think any comment of mine was ever rejected.

    What we have here, the comment I'm replying to, is something that makes absolutely no attempt to further the discussion. It's just a personal attack on another participant, me in this case. You would think that if there was a real moderator looking at this, that they would reject such a comment, because it contains absolutely no attempt to further any constructive discussion about anything.

    Well, I guess it must be that as long as the comment is not hawking penis enlargement pills or something like that, then it is approved.

    I spent a bit of energy and consulted a psychiatrist friend of mine,
     
    That's interesting Sammy. Just out of curiosity, what nationality is this friend of yours? Where did he study medicine?

    Also, Sam, this friend of yours... when you go out for a beer with him, can the other people in the pub see him? Or are you the only one who sees him?

    Anyway, Sammy boy, I asked you what the proof of the government's 9/11 story was and at one point you pointed me to a page that was a summary of the government's 9/11 story. So, apparently, you think that the government's narrative is proof of the government's narrative. Well, okay, if you think that, I guess it is understandable that you could think that the psychiatric diagnosis of your imaginary friend is also proof of something.

    But, look, even if I conceded, just for the sake of argument that I actually am mad as a hatter, that doesn't mean, in and of itself, that any specific thing I say is incorrect, does it? And specifically, when I point out to you that the government's story is NOT proof of the government's story, and your "rebuttal" to this is to speculate about my mental health... I don't think that if there was any sort of serious "moderation" going on here, this kind of stuff should be let through.

    If somebody doesn't address factually or logically anything the other person is saying and just starts this silliness with imaginary shrink friends making diagnoses... I don't even know why you demean yourself this way actually. Maybe you're just getting paid by the comment or have a daily quota you have to meet or something. I have no idea...

    Note to Sam Shama

    I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance

    There is no therapy fix for this preceding-

    Meanwhile, for the rest, here’s the closest I’ve come to lampooning something similar to JR’s philosophy:

    What is
    Had ought
    Not
    Wish
    To wash

    David Hume’s impossible postulation…

    “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason”

    …is summed up in Western ethics as ‘Hume’s guillotine’ or the ‘ought-is problem.’ Now, forgive my naiveté when faced with this immutable Western dilemma of philosophy where the ‘ought-is problem‘ is posed…

    “how, exactly can an “ought” be derived from an “is”? The question, prompted by Hume’s small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory”

    …as it occurs in my small universe if my ass IS dirty I had OUGHT to wash it. Correct? Or, if it is in the natural order of things one were to have a dirty ass as a matter of fact, expectation and normalcy, and those hairy-assed little shit-balls, quaintly know as ‘dingle-berries’ in the vulgar tongue, must endure .. would it be a violation of IS to pull them out? Had one OUGHT *NOT* do that? What I’m getting at is, there was this time during my progressing baldness I had my head waxed to remove what amounted to an annoying residual fuzz. Now, it’d never occurred to me (previous to faced with Hume’s ‘ought-is problem’) hairy people OUGHT to have an ass-wax-job, but now this seems a logical progression from dirty ass as a result of hairy ass-crack, or that is an IS to an OUGHT.

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/david-hume/

    Conceding in JR’s case Hume may also have had it right – or that is to say JR could not tell the difference, or make a connection between, an IS and an OUGHT

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Uhh, Ronnie Boy, what is your source for your previous claim that it would take "years" to wire the WTC towers for demolition? It took 2.5 years to build each tower. You're saying it takes as long or longer to simply demolish them? i.e. to load them with explosives and kaboom?

    You know, I was thinking a bit more about this today and remember old movies, like "Bridge over the River Kwai" and how Alec Guinness and his soldiers spend most of the movie building this bridge -- I don't think it's clear exactly how long, but surely many months. At the very end of the movie, William Holden shows and blows up the bridge. He has a specialized team, I think, but it doesn't take them that long to blow up what it tooks those Brit soldiers months and months to build.

    Maybe that just wasn't realistic. It's a movie after all. I mean, okay, in real life, it takes about as long to blow up something as it does to build it in the first place, huh?

    And then there are these other unrealistic war movies, like "A Bridge too Far". Surely, again, it takes just as long to blow up a bridge as it does to build it, no?
    , @Sam Shama
    lol. Brilliant!

    I think I may have made a roughly similar point to JR, during his futile search for the Ark of the Covenant, when he questioned the meaning of my words, and I remarked "Surely a sentence which begins with the word 'surely' can validly contain a question mark at the end?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Ronald Thomas West
    Note to Sam Shama

    I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance
     
    There is no therapy fix for this preceding-

    Meanwhile, for the rest, here's the closest I've come to lampooning something similar to JR's philosophy:

    What is
    Had ought
    Not
    Wish
    To wash

    David Hume’s impossible postulation…

    “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason”

    …is summed up in Western ethics as ‘Hume’s guillotine’ or the ‘ought-is problem.’ Now, forgive my naiveté when faced with this immutable Western dilemma of philosophy where the ‘ought-is problem‘ is posed…

    “how, exactly can an “ought” be derived from an “is”? The question, prompted by Hume’s small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory”

    …as it occurs in my small universe if my ass IS dirty I had OUGHT to wash it. Correct? Or, if it is in the natural order of things one were to have a dirty ass as a matter of fact, expectation and normalcy, and those hairy-assed little shit-balls, quaintly know as ‘dingle-berries’ in the vulgar tongue, must endure .. would it be a violation of IS to pull them out? Had one OUGHT *NOT* do that? What I’m getting at is, there was this time during my progressing baldness I had my head waxed to remove what amounted to an annoying residual fuzz. Now, it’d never occurred to me (previous to faced with Hume’s ‘ought-is problem’) hairy people OUGHT to have an ass-wax-job, but now this seems a logical progression from dirty ass as a result of hairy ass-crack, or that is an IS to an OUGHT.

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/david-hume/
     
    Conceding in JR's case Hume may also have had it right - or that is to say JR could not tell the difference, or make a connection between, an IS and an OUGHT

    Uhh, Ronnie Boy, what is your source for your previous claim that it would take “years” to wire the WTC towers for demolition? It took 2.5 years to build each tower. You’re saying it takes as long or longer to simply demolish them? i.e. to load them with explosives and kaboom?

    You know, I was thinking a bit more about this today and remember old movies, like “Bridge over the River Kwai” and how Alec Guinness and his soldiers spend most of the movie building this bridge — I don’t think it’s clear exactly how long, but surely many months. At the very end of the movie, William Holden shows and blows up the bridge. He has a specialized team, I think, but it doesn’t take them that long to blow up what it tooks those Brit soldiers months and months to build.

    Maybe that just wasn’t realistic. It’s a movie after all. I mean, okay, in real life, it takes about as long to blow up something as it does to build it in the first place, huh?

    And then there are these other unrealistic war movies, like “A Bridge too Far”. Surely, again, it takes just as long to blow up a bridge as it does to build it, no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Sam Shama says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Note to Sam Shama

    I think, far more importantly, even if my comment about the elevators is mistaken, it is of no real importance
     
    There is no therapy fix for this preceding-

    Meanwhile, for the rest, here's the closest I've come to lampooning something similar to JR's philosophy:

    What is
    Had ought
    Not
    Wish
    To wash

    David Hume’s impossible postulation…

    “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason”

    …is summed up in Western ethics as ‘Hume’s guillotine’ or the ‘ought-is problem.’ Now, forgive my naiveté when faced with this immutable Western dilemma of philosophy where the ‘ought-is problem‘ is posed…

    “how, exactly can an “ought” be derived from an “is”? The question, prompted by Hume’s small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory”

    …as it occurs in my small universe if my ass IS dirty I had OUGHT to wash it. Correct? Or, if it is in the natural order of things one were to have a dirty ass as a matter of fact, expectation and normalcy, and those hairy-assed little shit-balls, quaintly know as ‘dingle-berries’ in the vulgar tongue, must endure .. would it be a violation of IS to pull them out? Had one OUGHT *NOT* do that? What I’m getting at is, there was this time during my progressing baldness I had my head waxed to remove what amounted to an annoying residual fuzz. Now, it’d never occurred to me (previous to faced with Hume’s ‘ought-is problem’) hairy people OUGHT to have an ass-wax-job, but now this seems a logical progression from dirty ass as a result of hairy ass-crack, or that is an IS to an OUGHT.

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/06/david-hume/
     
    Conceding in JR's case Hume may also have had it right - or that is to say JR could not tell the difference, or make a connection between, an IS and an OUGHT

    lol. Brilliant!

    I think I may have made a roughly similar point to JR, during his futile search for the Ark of the Covenant, when he questioned the meaning of my words, and I remarked “Surely a sentence which begins with the word ‘surely’ can validly contain a question mark at the end?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    Just answer this one question; why didn’t the federal government find out how the Mossad agents knew the first plane was going to hit the tower before they let those guys fly back to Israel?
     
    As I've indicated before, I am in complete agreement with the assertion that the Israelis had foreknowledge about the attacks, but did not share it. If you look back at my posts, you'll find that I even provided a link to a video about the five dancing Israelis. They were interrogated while held in custody but were somehow released after pressure was applied by higher ups.

    Not sure why we're rehashing this.

    Not sure why we’re rehashing this.

    would your sentiments on the subject tend to mirror the gentleman in the video?

    The reason, IMHO that we should care ‘who killed who’, is because the people who did the killing are still holding the sword. As long as the American people let these psychopaths get away with lying us into wars and false flags, they’re just going to keep them coming. And it’s only a matter of time before they do it again. It’s just like with all their financial mega-swindles. The S&L mass looting. The 2008 derivatives / sub-prime mass looting. And so on. Since they’re able to get away with all of these things every time, WACO, lied about wars, mass-murdering false flags, overt looting of the US Treasury… they’re just going to keep doing them.

    My suggestion is that us bovine, cud-chewing sheep who they’ve come to count on acting like bovine, cud-chewers, is that we lift up our heads from the pasture and act like men for once in our lives, and tell our rapacious tormentors ‘no more!’

    And the first place to start, is by caring ‘who killed who’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    And the first place to start, is by caring ‘who killed who’.
     
    The "this" in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.

    I think my previous posts speak for themselves on the latter topic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    HWhen I watched the israeli show where Yair Lapid interviews the ,"dancing Israelis" these characters were saying that they rushed from the West Side highway to Jersey City until they found a great view of the already in progress conflagration. They said that they were there to "document the event" as in a news scoop.

    These men imho were low level Mossad moles spying on the local Arab community. The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans. So had the Egyptians and the British. I think this was known pretty well.

    What is the evidence (circumstantial?) that they had perfect foreknowledge? Or that they were involved, other than an appeal to previous false flags?

    of the already in progress …

    they had their equipment set up before the first plane hit

    “document the event” as in a news scoop.

    they weren’t journalists, they were Mossad agents

    The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans.

    Some Americans. The rest of the Americans, like the ones working in the second tower were told to return to their work stations after the first plane hit. They were all told there was no danger and to return to work. Lucky Larry wanted as many of his tenants, (the unimportant ones anyways who had not been warned) to be slaughtered in the conflagration. It was “very good”, as Bibi put it, that so many died on that day. The more deaths, the more outrage at Israel’s enemies.

    So yes, some Americans were warned. Giuliani, Ashcroft.. many others. And then again some specifically- were not warned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    Not sure why we’re rehashing this.
     
    would your sentiments on the subject tend to mirror the gentleman in the video?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI


    The reason, IMHO that we should care 'who killed who', is because the people who did the killing are still holding the sword. As long as the American people let these psychopaths get away with lying us into wars and false flags, they're just going to keep them coming. And it's only a matter of time before they do it again. It's just like with all their financial mega-swindles. The S&L mass looting. The 2008 derivatives / sub-prime mass looting. And so on. Since they're able to get away with all of these things every time, WACO, lied about wars, mass-murdering false flags, overt looting of the US Treasury... they're just going to keep doing them.

    My suggestion is that us bovine, cud-chewing sheep who they've come to count on acting like bovine, cud-chewers, is that we lift up our heads from the pasture and act like men for once in our lives, and tell our rapacious tormentors 'no more!'

    And the first place to start, is by caring 'who killed who'.

    And the first place to start, is by caring ‘who killed who’.

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.

    I think my previous posts speak for themselves on the latter topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.
     
    you see no connection between the two events?

    the 'dancing Israelis' and 'who killed who'(m)?

    The only false flag that comes to mind that was used in just such a way as 911 was the burning of the Reichstag which was the spark that led to Hitler's consolidation of power over Germany and eventually the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    If the real perpetrators of the Reichstag fire could have been caught and punished and WWII could have been prevented, I feel that would have been a worthy effort, no?

    So too with 911. If the dancing Israelis are proof of Israeli participation on 911 at the highest levels of its government, and upon further examination, proof of elements in our own government's complicity on that day, then if that knowledge could be used to bring the guilty to justice and prevent yet another banker's world war, like they're busy trying to foment as we speak, with their efforts in the Ukraine, don't you think it makes sense to at least pursue the leads?

    You keep telling me that you've already answered all these questions, but then again, as you point out, I'm a newcomer here. So why not just humor me with your explanations once again, and if there's a wandering soul out there who stumbles across this oubliette and out of curiosity peers in, they too will be able to drink of the fruit of your insights...

    Or should we all just consider the matter of 911 settled?

    Are we just wasting our time pursuing chimeras. The people who died on 911 are dead. (just like the guys on the USS Liberty, or the million or so innocent Iraqis, or Libyans...) Nothing we do can bring them back. Let's stop worrying about who killed who', and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell's wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn't Obama sending troops?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    And the first place to start, is by caring ‘who killed who’.
     
    The "this" in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.

    I think my previous posts speak for themselves on the latter topic.

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.

    you see no connection between the two events?

    the ‘dancing Israelis’ and ‘who killed who’(m)?

    The only false flag that comes to mind that was used in just such a way as 911 was the burning of the Reichstag which was the spark that led to Hitler’s consolidation of power over Germany and eventually the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    If the real perpetrators of the Reichstag fire could have been caught and punished and WWII could have been prevented, I feel that would have been a worthy effort, no?

    So too with 911. If the dancing Israelis are proof of Israeli participation on 911 at the highest levels of its government, and upon further examination, proof of elements in our own government’s complicity on that day, then if that knowledge could be used to bring the guilty to justice and prevent yet another banker’s world war, like they’re busy trying to foment as we speak, with their efforts in the Ukraine, don’t you think it makes sense to at least pursue the leads?

    You keep telling me that you’ve already answered all these questions, but then again, as you point out, I’m a newcomer here. So why not just humor me with your explanations once again, and if there’s a wandering soul out there who stumbles across this oubliette and out of curiosity peers in, they too will be able to drink of the fruit of your insights…

    Or should we all just consider the matter of 911 settled?

    Are we just wasting our time pursuing chimeras. The people who died on 911 are dead. (just like the guys on the USS Liberty, or the million or so innocent Iraqis, or Libyans…) Nothing we do can bring them back. Let’s stop worrying about who killed who’, and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell’s wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn’t Obama sending troops?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    See my previous comments re newcomers.
    , @geokat62

    ... the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.
     
    Interesting choice of spellings for the term "H(h)olocaust."
    , @Ronald Thomas West

    Let’s stop worrying about who killed who’, and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell’s wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn’t Obama sending troops?!
     
    I didn't forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you've made an assertion your religion is truth. Firstly, these are Pentagon and Department of State talking points. Secondly, it was Carla Del Ponte was promptly pushed out of her UN role on the Syria gas issue when she pointed the finger at the anti-Assad forces for false flag gas attacks early on (information developed further by independent investigators.) Thirdly, Putin shooting planes out of the sky is something even the phony, politicized, Dutch led investigation won't dare conclude. And fourthly, you consistently prop up the patently dishonest (classic troll technique) act represented in JR.

    Sayanara dude, I'm indulging myself in the thought of *JIDF* (again) or like minded folk, here's a fine compilation of candidates:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

    ^
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Sam Shama
    Its no imaginary friend. Every bit of my post is true. I don't bear any hostility towards you. If you go back to your own posts, and mine, you will find the extent of your (for the lack of a better term) verbal diarrhea, name calling etc. Whether you think you and your antagonist initially entered into a "debate in good faith" or not, you turned it into a "debate in good filth". I have no interest in that.

    The psychiatrist friend is real and practices in NYC, with a degree from one of the very top U.S institutions. If you have a shred of normalcy intact, you must know (given your almost identical modus operandi, from the link I provided above) that you have been engaged in dueling the 9/11 issue since at least 2013, apparently bereft of any satisfaction. That should tell you something, and you might consider (with help, which is available) disengaging from the cycle of obsessive behaviour.

    Shabbat Shalom

    Its no imaginary friend. Every bit of my post is true.

    LOL! Yeah, and I guess, if I ask you for proof, you’ll point back to the original message where you claim this! Just like the 9/11 commission report is proof of the 9/11 commission report.

    The psychiatrist friend is real and practices in NYC, with a degree from one of the very top U.S institutions.

    So this prestigious ivy league educated shrink agreed pro bono to diagnose my mental health based on my writings on this site and maybe another one or two places.

    Did you ask him to diagnose anybody else’s mental health pro bono? Only me? To what do I owe the honor?

    How extraordinary…. And he did this valuable work for free! One clarification: did you offer to pay him his going rate, but he then declined?

    Hold on! I’ve got it! You must have offered him some “blowback”!

    C’mon, look, Sam. Everybody here knows that you just made this story up. And what’s further incredible is that surely you know that everybody knows you’re lying, yet you just keep gamely on with this! Why would anybody do this? Okay, it’s just a virtual forum, so you don’t have to show your face, but still…. this is so demeaning, isn’t it? Why continue with this? Why not just walk away?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.
     
    you see no connection between the two events?

    the 'dancing Israelis' and 'who killed who'(m)?

    The only false flag that comes to mind that was used in just such a way as 911 was the burning of the Reichstag which was the spark that led to Hitler's consolidation of power over Germany and eventually the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    If the real perpetrators of the Reichstag fire could have been caught and punished and WWII could have been prevented, I feel that would have been a worthy effort, no?

    So too with 911. If the dancing Israelis are proof of Israeli participation on 911 at the highest levels of its government, and upon further examination, proof of elements in our own government's complicity on that day, then if that knowledge could be used to bring the guilty to justice and prevent yet another banker's world war, like they're busy trying to foment as we speak, with their efforts in the Ukraine, don't you think it makes sense to at least pursue the leads?

    You keep telling me that you've already answered all these questions, but then again, as you point out, I'm a newcomer here. So why not just humor me with your explanations once again, and if there's a wandering soul out there who stumbles across this oubliette and out of curiosity peers in, they too will be able to drink of the fruit of your insights...

    Or should we all just consider the matter of 911 settled?

    Are we just wasting our time pursuing chimeras. The people who died on 911 are dead. (just like the guys on the USS Liberty, or the million or so innocent Iraqis, or Libyans...) Nothing we do can bring them back. Let's stop worrying about who killed who', and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell's wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn't Obama sending troops?!

    See my previous comments re newcomers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    You see my query to you as a veiled attempt to shut the Unz Review down?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Rurik says:
    @geokat62
    See my previous comments re newcomers.

    You see my query to you as a veiled attempt to shut the Unz Review down?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam's Razor. Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation carried out by the US neocon + Israeli + British cabal, with the aid of the Fed to continue its megalomaniacal pursuit of world domination. That is more our less it, correct? ( I am sure others feel similarly with small variations).

    Obviously that is a very powerful set of actors to confront. If you think that any further convincing is required to tip the balance in the minds of the UR readership, you must surely know that you are preaching to the true believers. A few might be a bit cloak and daggerish about it, but we should put that down to a mild act in order to appear "balanced and serious".

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don't you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the "truth") . So what more?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. geokat62 says:

    You catch on, fast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    that's just bizarre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik
    You see my query to you as a veiled attempt to shut the Unz Review down?

    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam’s Razor. Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation carried out by the US neocon + Israeli + British cabal, with the aid of the Fed to continue its megalomaniacal pursuit of world domination. That is more our less it, correct? ( I am sure others feel similarly with small variations).

    Obviously that is a very powerful set of actors to confront. If you think that any further convincing is required to tip the balance in the minds of the UR readership, you must surely know that you are preaching to the true believers. A few might be a bit cloak and daggerish about it, but we should put that down to a mild act in order to appear “balanced and serious”.

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don’t you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Observing the social psychology is interesting, where people sit on their hands as though wowed/frozen when watching a 'whodunit' suspense thriller while wearing 3D goggles.

    My guess is, people will continue in their state of suspense, most not wishing to disturb social order, many more not knowing what to do, or what direction to take, until something unexpected breaks in a big way; with no way of predicting outcomes.

    Something my cultural background tells me is, as soon as you're absolutely certain you've got all the facts pinned down, you're quite likely wrong. I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.

    Meanwhile, to take that immediate, preceding, thought forward, here is a 'devil's advocate' piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/26/rons-conspiracy-theory/

    ^ "Ron's Conspiracy Theory"
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam’s Razor.
     
    Who's this Occam fellow and does he know you're playing with his razor? Careful, Sammy Boy, you might cut yourself!

    Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation
     
    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.

    Certainly, when repeatedly asked for proof that the government story is true, you have been unable to provide anything that withstands the proverbial laugh test. You claimed that a video of a plane hitting a building is somehow proof that Bin Laden was behind it. There is a clear record of this kind of level of discourse on your part here.

    So there is no proof for the official story. So, given that, why are the government, the media and self-styled experts on foreign policy like Mr. Giraldi here, pushing or at least going along with an explanation for the event for which there is absolutely no real proof?

    Why? You have an answer for that? I guess not, except to insinuate that the people who don't accept this and want to get at the truth must suffer some sort of mental problem.

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don’t you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?
     
    Sammy, this here is basically a discussion forum. The only thing you can do on a discussion forum is have a discussion. What can come from a discussion is that more people end up knowing the truth. That alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary condition.

    Open, honest discussion aimed at getting at the truth does not in and of itself achieve anything concrete, no, but it is still threatening enough to certain elements that there are organized trolling campaigns to try to disrupt such discussions -- here and elsewhere.

    I feel that my main contribution to this page has been to show up this nonsense about "blowback terrorism" which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent. I made that point in a response to the original author of the article and he simply did not deign to respond.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020073

    I did not expect him to respond, but I feel that it was important to (a) make these points and (b) to show clearly the fact that the author is unwilling and/or unable to respond to these points -- which I think is also quite clear.

    Regardless, if you think the discussion on this page is pointless, then the real question is why are you here, Sammy? If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?
    , @Rurik

    wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?
     
    nothing more

    does engaging in the pursuit of truth = trying to shut Unz Review down ?

    or are people trying to treat this place like their own little fiefdom where outside opinions and questions are verboten?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Siri – Are we there, yet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. @Sam Shama
    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam's Razor. Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation carried out by the US neocon + Israeli + British cabal, with the aid of the Fed to continue its megalomaniacal pursuit of world domination. That is more our less it, correct? ( I am sure others feel similarly with small variations).

    Obviously that is a very powerful set of actors to confront. If you think that any further convincing is required to tip the balance in the minds of the UR readership, you must surely know that you are preaching to the true believers. A few might be a bit cloak and daggerish about it, but we should put that down to a mild act in order to appear "balanced and serious".

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don't you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the "truth") . So what more?

    Observing the social psychology is interesting, where people sit on their hands as though wowed/frozen when watching a ‘whodunit’ suspense thriller while wearing 3D goggles.

    My guess is, people will continue in their state of suspense, most not wishing to disturb social order, many more not knowing what to do, or what direction to take, until something unexpected breaks in a big way; with no way of predicting outcomes.

    Something my cultural background tells me is, as soon as you’re absolutely certain you’ve got all the facts pinned down, you’re quite likely wrong. I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.

    Meanwhile, to take that immediate, preceding, thought forward, here is a ‘devil’s advocate’ piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/26/rons-conspiracy-theory/

    ^ “Ron’s Conspiracy Theory”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.
     
    and per your 'Theory' ..

    The phenomena you seem to be discussing is more akin to something like Zionism, and the way the people involved are not talking to each other, but simply understand the general goal, and behave thus. Sort of like Manifest Destiny of the Euro colonists of N. America a few centuries ago.

    Whereas a more immediate example of a conspiracy theory of the type being discussed vis-a-vis this thread; 911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance. Lies that permeate from the top down- and cow the sheeple into bowed-head obedience through the other, first kind of conspiracy which is a kind of collective cowardice in the face of the emperors flowing robes. A 'conspiracy' of 'going along to get along'..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Sam Shama
    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam's Razor. Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation carried out by the US neocon + Israeli + British cabal, with the aid of the Fed to continue its megalomaniacal pursuit of world domination. That is more our less it, correct? ( I am sure others feel similarly with small variations).

    Obviously that is a very powerful set of actors to confront. If you think that any further convincing is required to tip the balance in the minds of the UR readership, you must surely know that you are preaching to the true believers. A few might be a bit cloak and daggerish about it, but we should put that down to a mild act in order to appear "balanced and serious".

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don't you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the "truth") . So what more?

    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam’s Razor.

    Who’s this Occam fellow and does he know you’re playing with his razor? Careful, Sammy Boy, you might cut yourself!

    Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation

    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.

    Certainly, when repeatedly asked for proof that the government story is true, you have been unable to provide anything that withstands the proverbial laugh test. You claimed that a video of a plane hitting a building is somehow proof that Bin Laden was behind it. There is a clear record of this kind of level of discourse on your part here.

    So there is no proof for the official story. So, given that, why are the government, the media and self-styled experts on foreign policy like Mr. Giraldi here, pushing or at least going along with an explanation for the event for which there is absolutely no real proof?

    Why? You have an answer for that? I guess not, except to insinuate that the people who don’t accept this and want to get at the truth must suffer some sort of mental problem.

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don’t you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?

    Sammy, this here is basically a discussion forum. The only thing you can do on a discussion forum is have a discussion. What can come from a discussion is that more people end up knowing the truth. That alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary condition.

    Open, honest discussion aimed at getting at the truth does not in and of itself achieve anything concrete, no, but it is still threatening enough to certain elements that there are organized trolling campaigns to try to disrupt such discussions — here and elsewhere.

    I feel that my main contribution to this page has been to show up this nonsense about “blowback terrorism” which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent. I made that point in a response to the original author of the article and he simply did not deign to respond.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020073

    I did not expect him to respond, but I feel that it was important to (a) make these points and (b) to show clearly the fact that the author is unwilling and/or unable to respond to these points — which I think is also quite clear.

    Regardless, if you think the discussion on this page is pointless, then the real question is why are you here, Sammy? If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?
     
    It's a mentally ill culture dude, you can't step anywhere without stepping in that shit. That said, there is this thing called 'degrees' or the extent to which any one individual suffers (get help, it's why there is an entire industry devoted to mental illness.)
    , @Rurik

    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.
     
    : )


    to show up this nonsense about “blowback terrorism” which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent.
     
    it does indeed seem rare, but then when you point that out, the first thing someone is going to do is try to discredit the only living American statesman of our time, Ron Paul for his use of the expression. (Which he and others are forced to use because it is universally considered beyond the pale to point out that 911 was actually a false flag).

    This will I suspect change in time as more and more people come to see the treachery on 911 as self-evident. Or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Jonathan Revusky

    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam’s Razor.
     
    Who's this Occam fellow and does he know you're playing with his razor? Careful, Sammy Boy, you might cut yourself!

    Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation
     
    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.

    Certainly, when repeatedly asked for proof that the government story is true, you have been unable to provide anything that withstands the proverbial laugh test. You claimed that a video of a plane hitting a building is somehow proof that Bin Laden was behind it. There is a clear record of this kind of level of discourse on your part here.

    So there is no proof for the official story. So, given that, why are the government, the media and self-styled experts on foreign policy like Mr. Giraldi here, pushing or at least going along with an explanation for the event for which there is absolutely no real proof?

    Why? You have an answer for that? I guess not, except to insinuate that the people who don't accept this and want to get at the truth must suffer some sort of mental problem.

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don’t you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?
     
    Sammy, this here is basically a discussion forum. The only thing you can do on a discussion forum is have a discussion. What can come from a discussion is that more people end up knowing the truth. That alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary condition.

    Open, honest discussion aimed at getting at the truth does not in and of itself achieve anything concrete, no, but it is still threatening enough to certain elements that there are organized trolling campaigns to try to disrupt such discussions -- here and elsewhere.

    I feel that my main contribution to this page has been to show up this nonsense about "blowback terrorism" which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent. I made that point in a response to the original author of the article and he simply did not deign to respond.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020073

    I did not expect him to respond, but I feel that it was important to (a) make these points and (b) to show clearly the fact that the author is unwilling and/or unable to respond to these points -- which I think is also quite clear.

    Regardless, if you think the discussion on this page is pointless, then the real question is why are you here, Sammy? If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?

    If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?

    It’s a mentally ill culture dude, you can’t step anywhere without stepping in that shit. That said, there is this thing called ‘degrees’ or the extent to which any one individual suffers (get help, it’s why there is an entire industry devoted to mental illness.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Ron, did Sam Shama appoint you as his spokesman or what?

    Out of idle curiosity (and also, just so we know what we're dealing with here) do you believe Sammy's story about the prestigious NYC psychiatrist friend of his who performed a long distance diagnosis of my mental condition?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.
     
    you see no connection between the two events?

    the 'dancing Israelis' and 'who killed who'(m)?

    The only false flag that comes to mind that was used in just such a way as 911 was the burning of the Reichstag which was the spark that led to Hitler's consolidation of power over Germany and eventually the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    If the real perpetrators of the Reichstag fire could have been caught and punished and WWII could have been prevented, I feel that would have been a worthy effort, no?

    So too with 911. If the dancing Israelis are proof of Israeli participation on 911 at the highest levels of its government, and upon further examination, proof of elements in our own government's complicity on that day, then if that knowledge could be used to bring the guilty to justice and prevent yet another banker's world war, like they're busy trying to foment as we speak, with their efforts in the Ukraine, don't you think it makes sense to at least pursue the leads?

    You keep telling me that you've already answered all these questions, but then again, as you point out, I'm a newcomer here. So why not just humor me with your explanations once again, and if there's a wandering soul out there who stumbles across this oubliette and out of curiosity peers in, they too will be able to drink of the fruit of your insights...

    Or should we all just consider the matter of 911 settled?

    Are we just wasting our time pursuing chimeras. The people who died on 911 are dead. (just like the guys on the USS Liberty, or the million or so innocent Iraqis, or Libyans...) Nothing we do can bring them back. Let's stop worrying about who killed who', and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell's wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn't Obama sending troops?!

    … the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    Interesting choice of spellings for the term “H(h)olocaust.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    why?

    do you want for me to explain to you why one is capitalized and the other is not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Ronald Thomas West

    If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?
     
    It's a mentally ill culture dude, you can't step anywhere without stepping in that shit. That said, there is this thing called 'degrees' or the extent to which any one individual suffers (get help, it's why there is an entire industry devoted to mental illness.)

    Ron, did Sam Shama appoint you as his spokesman or what?

    Out of idle curiosity (and also, just so we know what we’re dealing with here) do you believe Sammy’s story about the prestigious NYC psychiatrist friend of his who performed a long distance diagnosis of my mental condition?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Sam Shama says:

    Wow this page really got broadcasted out. I’ve been reading Ronald’s material for some time time now and this exchange is something. I personally buy what Ron has been saying and also checked out some links earlier put out. I mean this guy Jonathan Revusky is like like totally possessed by this. Man you’ve been duking it out with exact same stuff for a while. Its funny!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  157. @Rurik

    Frankly, his discourse seems deliberately ambiguous!
     
    Like you said about Dr. Paul, there are places people dare not go. One of them today is the truth regarding 911.

    I remember years ago being frustrated with the columnist (who I'm sure you're familiar with) Fred Reed, and his unwillingness to discuss honestly the truth about 911. Today I understand the understandable motive of those unwilling to 'go there'. It's an issue wrought with career destroying rancor and acrimony. Even the anointed can lose their jobs, as what was done very publically to Rosie O'Donnell, until she came to her 'senses'.

    Better to stick to issues of race in America that are niggling by comparison.

    It sort of seems to me that the whole issue of blowback being discussed has to do with men like Ron Paul having to pretend that 911 happened the way the government said it did.

    And it's true that we have been sticking pointed sticks in the Muslim snake. Propping up the Saudi regime is wickedness most abhorrent. The inhuman treatment of the Palestinians, etc.. If we did get some blowback, it'd be understandable. But I don't see the reason to have a heated debate about whether or not or to what degree it is experienced.

    The real issue is 911 to my mind, and I for one do not understand how any remotely intelligent person can cling to the official story except dishonestly. IMHO.

    But that doesn't mean they have to shout it from the rooftops, because doing so today will inflame the sheeple. Sad truth, alas.

    Yes, of course I’m familiar with Fred Reed, and, yeah, as far as I can tell, he just doesn’t go there. If you find yourself in this conversation with him again, you should share this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epu2w7aYDOU

    and inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.

    If we did get some blowback, it’d be understandable.

    Understandable, yeah. Well, let me tell you a story. There is a man who has only one son and that son is the light of his life, the thing he most loves in the world. That son signs up to join the military after 9/11 and gets killed. The father is devastated, and feels he has no more reason to live. He knows full well that his son was sent to war based on a pack of lies. So the father, so embittered and angry, goes off to Washington D.C. and figures he’ll gun down every one of those Congress critters he can find.

    Would that be understandable? I think so. Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.

    The question isn’t whether something is “understandable” but whether it really does happen!!??

    What blew me away recently was that I saw that Lieutenant William Calley, you know of My Lai massacre fame — that guy is still alive and living openly in Atlanta. You know, this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley who is responsible for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

    Not only has nobody taken their revenge on William Calley for this, but the guy just lives openly, never changed his name and nobody has done anything to him. It would be perfectly understandable if some angry Vietnamese showed up one day and dragged this guy off and administered some justice, but it never happened.

    Blowback does not really exist!

    “Blowback” is just some contrived explanation of these false flags to avoid facing the obvious, that they are false flags.

    Anyway, as regards this fear of telling the truth, the best comment on this is here:

    You can tell Freddy Reed that the black man in the video is 100x smarter than he is and has 100x more integrity as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.
     
    Hey JR, I don't and never have suspected that Freddie's problem was a lack of smarts. Shucks no. It isn't that he's dumb, but rather that he's a venal coward who likes his invites to Washington DC cocktail parties a little too much. He's like so many alas. I think of SCOTUS justice Roberts and the way people who thought they knew him were/are shocked at how willing he is to use the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold as toilet paper. These intelligent men who so many people count on are willing to betray everything for a little bit of vanity-assuaging, ego massaging 'acceptance' by people who can't stand them. It's a conundrum.

    Would that be understandable? I think so.
     
    then we agree

    Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.
     
    me either

    I can think of a lot of people who have every right to exact justice/retribution. The relatives at Waco for instance, or the people who lost loved ones when Clinton bombed Serbia. If one of them tried to hold Clinton to account, who could blame them?

    All I can say is that for myself, even if I've been wronged, I try to forgive and move on. Life is precious and should not be tossed away if one can avoid doing so, but then when that guy shot the man who molested his son, everyone understood and even applauded his courage and humanity. I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.

    >><<

    I remember watching that video of Farrakhan a while back and sending it to a few people I know. I was very impressed and have much more respect for the man, racist tho that he is. But he calls it straight. If Americans are that cowardly and pathetic, then we deserve what we get.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. KA says:
    @Sam Shama
    HWhen I watched the israeli show where Yair Lapid interviews the ,"dancing Israelis" these characters were saying that they rushed from the West Side highway to Jersey City until they found a great view of the already in progress conflagration. They said that they were there to "document the event" as in a news scoop.

    These men imho were low level Mossad moles spying on the local Arab community. The israelis had info re: possible attacks which they shared with the Americans. So had the Egyptians and the British. I think this was known pretty well.

    What is the evidence (circumstantial?) that they had perfect foreknowledge? Or that they were involved, other than an appeal to previous false flags?

    “The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

    “”They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,” said a senior Israeli security official.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html

    That’s what Mossad did. They threw sands at the US intelligence by making the association between Iraq and Al Qiada. This piece of I telligence will be highly uspect to US and it shouldn’t have been lost to Israel.
    Obviously US didn’t buy the assessment and ignored the warning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    That's it. Yet there are those who speculate, rather believe (if you have followed this thread), that the "dancing Israelis" were somehow connected to the actual attacks, managed the 19 "patsies" into crashing into the WTC and then (after 2 months of questioning) released by FBI (on orders from the neocon bosses).

    The Israeli connection imo is much simpler. Higher level Mossad (as well as Egyptian and British intel) did have a great deal of chatter data to conclude that some attacks on highly visible and populated targets were imminent, and communicated the same to the CIA and FBI. I am sure this information filtered down to the button men. The "dancing Israelis" were very likely low level Mossad, infiltrating the Patterson, NJ Arab hotspot, got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view. Their behaviour (which is basically hearsay), to put it mildly, was immature.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Rurik says:
    @geokat62
    You catch on, fast.

    that’s just bizarre

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    ... the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.
     
    Interesting choice of spellings for the term "H(h)olocaust."

    why?

    do you want for me to explain to you why one is capitalized and the other is not?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Rurik says:
    @Sam Shama
    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam's Razor. Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation carried out by the US neocon + Israeli + British cabal, with the aid of the Fed to continue its megalomaniacal pursuit of world domination. That is more our less it, correct? ( I am sure others feel similarly with small variations).

    Obviously that is a very powerful set of actors to confront. If you think that any further convincing is required to tip the balance in the minds of the UR readership, you must surely know that you are preaching to the true believers. A few might be a bit cloak and daggerish about it, but we should put that down to a mild act in order to appear "balanced and serious".

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don't you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the "truth") . So what more?

    wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?

    nothing more

    does engaging in the pursuit of truth = trying to shut Unz Review down ?

    or are people trying to treat this place like their own little fiefdom where outside opinions and questions are verboten?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Far be it for me to claim any fiefdom. That would be up to Ron Unz (e.g. he could institute a registration and login). I am simply curious re: opinions, but not to the extent of tolerating verbal filth.

    If you look at the cryptic (attempts at sharp, rapier incisiveness, no doubt) by @Geokat62 ("something smells fishy", "you catch on fast" , "holocaust and Holocaust" distinction), and @Jeff Albertson ("Siri: are we there yet?"), they are apparently claiming protective fiefdom.

    Me, I am just an interested traveller.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Sam Shama says:
    @KA
    "The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

    ""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html

    That's what Mossad did. They threw sands at the US intelligence by making the association between Iraq and Al Qiada. This piece of I telligence will be highly uspect to US and it shouldn't have been lost to Israel.
    Obviously US didn't buy the assessment and ignored the warning.

    That’s it. Yet there are those who speculate, rather believe (if you have followed this thread), that the “dancing Israelis” were somehow connected to the actual attacks, managed the 19 “patsies” into crashing into the WTC and then (after 2 months of questioning) released by FBI (on orders from the neocon bosses).

    The Israeli connection imo is much simpler. Higher level Mossad (as well as Egyptian and British intel) did have a great deal of chatter data to conclude that some attacks on highly visible and populated targets were imminent, and communicated the same to the CIA and FBI. I am sure this information filtered down to the button men. The “dancing Israelis” were very likely low level Mossad, infiltrating the Patterson, NJ Arab hotspot, got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view. Their behaviour (which is basically hearsay), to put it mildly, was immature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Dancing Israelis were caught in broad daylight with ,maps,and multiple passports plus cash. ( 4700.00 dollars in a sock ) When asked,they told the police " we are not your enemy. Arabs are your enemy"
    They also said" we wanted to document the event". Israeli gov admitted that they were spies . 2 of them were working for Mossad at that time.
    Urban Moving company 's owner managed to escape from US and landed in Israel .
    The releases of these 5 from detention facility was made possible by 2 prominent NewYork congressmen and negotiated by Alan Dershowitz .
    The names of the dancing Israelis appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database .
    Despite the unanswered questions,they were allowed to leave . Despite the potential of the clues, this angle was not followed or discussed by NYT,CNN,WSJ or NY Post or Cabinet members or Presidential hopefuls or mentioned by 911 commission. ( Christopher Ketcham in COUNTERPUNCH ,2007 Vol 14,No 3/4 )

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI. ( Justin Raimondo has documented this extensively in antiwar.com) at a time when media was unearthing secrets of Saddam in the mix of sand,alcohol,immigration,drug abuse,and fantasy of the homeless person in dire need of money and a place to live in faraway Germany ,Prague,Jordan.
    , @KA
    On 910 one day earlier WASHINGTON TIMES ran a report gathered by SAMS ( US. army's SCHOLL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES ) - " Of the Mossad ,the Israeli intelligence service,the SAMS officer say: Wildcard,Rithless and cunning. Has capacity to target US forces and make it look like Palestinian/ Arab act"

    Donald Rumsfield on 910 , one day before 911
    to Pentagon " the topic today is an adversary that poses a threat ,a serious threat,to the security of USA" . He asserts " much subtler,more implacable, more dangerous than Soviet ever been "
    He informed" more deadly," much closer to home " and " crushes new ideas" with " brutal consistency and disrupts the defense of US"

    ( A Pretext to War James Bamford ) also quoted by Frank Rich in NYT
    Culled from Commondreams.org
    What Rumsfield knew ,what was he referring to?
    But next day same Rumsfield jumped the guns by 911 feet and squarely blamed Iraq for being that deadly much closer implacable worse than Soviet anti US enemy.

    It can all be explained as nothing but attempts to create a fear psychosis among Americans . 911 ,when happened , was used and directed to the same goal - create fear ,submission,hatred,animosity and impotence .
    , @geokat62

    The “dancing Israelis” ... got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view.
     
    I thought you were going to write: "The “dancing Israelis” ... got wind of the attack and rushed to inform the appropriate authorities."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West
    Observing the social psychology is interesting, where people sit on their hands as though wowed/frozen when watching a 'whodunit' suspense thriller while wearing 3D goggles.

    My guess is, people will continue in their state of suspense, most not wishing to disturb social order, many more not knowing what to do, or what direction to take, until something unexpected breaks in a big way; with no way of predicting outcomes.

    Something my cultural background tells me is, as soon as you're absolutely certain you've got all the facts pinned down, you're quite likely wrong. I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.

    Meanwhile, to take that immediate, preceding, thought forward, here is a 'devil's advocate' piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/26/rons-conspiracy-theory/

    ^ "Ron's Conspiracy Theory"

    I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.

    and per your ‘Theory’ ..

    The phenomena you seem to be discussing is more akin to something like Zionism, and the way the people involved are not talking to each other, but simply understand the general goal, and behave thus. Sort of like Manifest Destiny of the Euro colonists of N. America a few centuries ago.

    Whereas a more immediate example of a conspiracy theory of the type being discussed vis-a-vis this thread; 911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance. Lies that permeate from the top down- and cow the sheeple into bowed-head obedience through the other, first kind of conspiracy which is a kind of collective cowardice in the face of the emperors flowing robes. A ‘conspiracy’ of ‘going along to get along’..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance
     
    9/11 is considerably more complex than any of the three examples you cite. You (different to JR's lunacy) read more into what I've said than is there, a more typical (and benign) sort of serving one's own argument. For some of my speculation (note I am specifying these are speculations) you may read some of my actual thoughts on the matter in part two (analysis section) of this piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/02/24/profits-of-war/

    ^

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Allow me to make an attempt to avail Occam’s Razor.
     
    Who's this Occam fellow and does he know you're playing with his razor? Careful, Sammy Boy, you might cut yourself!

    Your conclusion after considerable reading and research on the matter is that 9/11 is the greatest, most daring, false flag operation
     
    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.

    Certainly, when repeatedly asked for proof that the government story is true, you have been unable to provide anything that withstands the proverbial laugh test. You claimed that a video of a plane hitting a building is somehow proof that Bin Laden was behind it. There is a clear record of this kind of level of discourse on your part here.

    So there is no proof for the official story. So, given that, why are the government, the media and self-styled experts on foreign policy like Mr. Giraldi here, pushing or at least going along with an explanation for the event for which there is absolutely no real proof?

    Why? You have an answer for that? I guess not, except to insinuate that the people who don't accept this and want to get at the truth must suffer some sort of mental problem.

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward? (I believe that some here, are just pure and Socratic, don’t you know, wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?
     
    Sammy, this here is basically a discussion forum. The only thing you can do on a discussion forum is have a discussion. What can come from a discussion is that more people end up knowing the truth. That alone is not sufficient, but it is a necessary condition.

    Open, honest discussion aimed at getting at the truth does not in and of itself achieve anything concrete, no, but it is still threatening enough to certain elements that there are organized trolling campaigns to try to disrupt such discussions -- here and elsewhere.

    I feel that my main contribution to this page has been to show up this nonsense about "blowback terrorism" which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent. I made that point in a response to the original author of the article and he simply did not deign to respond.

    http://www.unz.com/article/turning-swords-into-plowshares/#comment-1020073

    I did not expect him to respond, but I feel that it was important to (a) make these points and (b) to show clearly the fact that the author is unwilling and/or unable to respond to these points -- which I think is also quite clear.

    Regardless, if you think the discussion on this page is pointless, then the real question is why are you here, Sammy? If I and most of the rest of the people here suffer from mental illness, why are you choosing to participate in a discussion forum dominated by mentally ill individuals? Are you just some sort of masochist? Why would anybody do that?

    And your conclusion after no reading and no research is that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are correct because they are written down in the 9/11 commission report. The truth is what the U.S. government claims because they claim it.

    : )

    to show up this nonsense about “blowback terrorism” which, as far as I can see, is a phenomenon that, to all intents an purposes, is nonexistent.

    it does indeed seem rare, but then when you point that out, the first thing someone is going to do is try to discredit the only living American statesman of our time, Ron Paul for his use of the expression. (Which he and others are forced to use because it is universally considered beyond the pale to point out that 911 was actually a false flag).

    This will I suspect change in time as more and more people come to see the treachery on 911 as self-evident. Or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik

    wishing to engage in simply knowing the “truth”) . So what more?
     
    nothing more

    does engaging in the pursuit of truth = trying to shut Unz Review down ?

    or are people trying to treat this place like their own little fiefdom where outside opinions and questions are verboten?

    Far be it for me to claim any fiefdom. That would be up to Ron Unz (e.g. he could institute a registration and login). I am simply curious re: opinions, but not to the extent of tolerating verbal filth.

    If you look at the cryptic (attempts at sharp, rapier incisiveness, no doubt) by @Geokat62 (“something smells fishy”, “you catch on fast” , “holocaust and Holocaust” distinction), and (“Siri: are we there yet?”), they are apparently claiming protective fiefdom.

    Me, I am just an interested traveller.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. KA says:
    @Sam Shama
    That's it. Yet there are those who speculate, rather believe (if you have followed this thread), that the "dancing Israelis" were somehow connected to the actual attacks, managed the 19 "patsies" into crashing into the WTC and then (after 2 months of questioning) released by FBI (on orders from the neocon bosses).

    The Israeli connection imo is much simpler. Higher level Mossad (as well as Egyptian and British intel) did have a great deal of chatter data to conclude that some attacks on highly visible and populated targets were imminent, and communicated the same to the CIA and FBI. I am sure this information filtered down to the button men. The "dancing Israelis" were very likely low level Mossad, infiltrating the Patterson, NJ Arab hotspot, got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view. Their behaviour (which is basically hearsay), to put it mildly, was immature.

    Dancing Israelis were caught in broad daylight with ,maps,and multiple passports plus cash. ( 4700.00 dollars in a sock ) When asked,they told the police ” we are not your enemy. Arabs are your enemy”
    They also said” we wanted to document the event”. Israeli gov admitted that they were spies . 2 of them were working for Mossad at that time.
    Urban Moving company ‘s owner managed to escape from US and landed in Israel .
    The releases of these 5 from detention facility was made possible by 2 prominent NewYork congressmen and negotiated by Alan Dershowitz .
    The names of the dancing Israelis appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database .
    Despite the unanswered questions,they were allowed to leave . Despite the potential of the clues, this angle was not followed or discussed by NYT,CNN,WSJ or NY Post or Cabinet members or Presidential hopefuls or mentioned by 911 commission. ( Christopher Ketcham in COUNTERPUNCH ,2007 Vol 14,No 3/4 )

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI. ( Justin Raimondo has documented this extensively in antiwar.com) at a time when media was unearthing secrets of Saddam in the mix of sand,alcohol,immigration,drug abuse,and fantasy of the homeless person in dire need of money and a place to live in faraway Germany ,Prague,Jordan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI.
     
    Speaking of the Anthrax attacks, here's a comment I previously posted here at UR:

    Speaking of “Still a whodunit and nobody cares anymore,” whatever happened to the investigation into the Anthrax attacks?

    The letters containing anthrax that were sent to Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, (both had been attempting to slow the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act), read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.

    It’d be fascinating to get a glimpse of the Mossad’s “to do” list!
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Yes, of course I'm familiar with Fred Reed, and, yeah, as far as I can tell, he just doesn't go there. If you find yourself in this conversation with him again, you should share this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epu2w7aYDOU

    and inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.


    If we did get some blowback, it’d be understandable.
     
    Understandable, yeah. Well, let me tell you a story. There is a man who has only one son and that son is the light of his life, the thing he most loves in the world. That son signs up to join the military after 9/11 and gets killed. The father is devastated, and feels he has no more reason to live. He knows full well that his son was sent to war based on a pack of lies. So the father, so embittered and angry, goes off to Washington D.C. and figures he'll gun down every one of those Congress critters he can find.

    Would that be understandable? I think so. Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.

    The question isn't whether something is "understandable" but whether it really does happen!!??

    What blew me away recently was that I saw that Lieutenant William Calley, you know of My Lai massacre fame -- that guy is still alive and living openly in Atlanta. You know, this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley who is responsible for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

    Not only has nobody taken their revenge on William Calley for this, but the guy just lives openly, never changed his name and nobody has done anything to him. It would be perfectly understandable if some angry Vietnamese showed up one day and dragged this guy off and administered some justice, but it never happened.

    Blowback does not really exist!

    "Blowback" is just some contrived explanation of these false flags to avoid facing the obvious, that they are false flags.

    Anyway, as regards this fear of telling the truth, the best comment on this is here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EKrXFcVyXE

    You can tell Freddy Reed that the black man in the video is 100x smarter than he is and has 100x more integrity as well.

    inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.

    Hey JR, I don’t and never have suspected that Freddie’s problem was a lack of smarts. Shucks no. It isn’t that he’s dumb, but rather that he’s a venal coward who likes his invites to Washington DC cocktail parties a little too much. He’s like so many alas. I think of SCOTUS justice Roberts and the way people who thought they knew him were/are shocked at how willing he is to use the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold as toilet paper. These intelligent men who so many people count on are willing to betray everything for a little bit of vanity-assuaging, ego massaging ‘acceptance’ by people who can’t stand them. It’s a conundrum.

    Would that be understandable? I think so.

    then we agree

    Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.

    me either

    I can think of a lot of people who have every right to exact justice/retribution. The relatives at Waco for instance, or the people who lost loved ones when Clinton bombed Serbia. If one of them tried to hold Clinton to account, who could blame them?

    All I can say is that for myself, even if I’ve been wronged, I try to forgive and move on. Life is precious and should not be tossed away if one can avoid doing so, but then when that guy shot the man who molested his son, everyone understood and even applauded his courage and humanity. I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.

    >><<

    I remember watching that video of Farrakhan a while back and sending it to a few people I know. I was very impressed and have much more respect for the man, racist tho that he is. But he calls it straight. If Americans are that cowardly and pathetic, then we deserve what we get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.
     
    Regarding non-violence, here is a comment I posted previously at UR:

    “The only practical political antidote to violence is peaceful resistance.”

    Prof. Michael Neumann completely demolishes this myth:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/08/nonviolence-its-histories-and-myths/

    But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.

    … In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Rurik

    I somehow doubt there is a tight-knit cabal but rather suspect competing elements whose interests often line up.
     
    and per your 'Theory' ..

    The phenomena you seem to be discussing is more akin to something like Zionism, and the way the people involved are not talking to each other, but simply understand the general goal, and behave thus. Sort of like Manifest Destiny of the Euro colonists of N. America a few centuries ago.

    Whereas a more immediate example of a conspiracy theory of the type being discussed vis-a-vis this thread; 911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance. Lies that permeate from the top down- and cow the sheeple into bowed-head obedience through the other, first kind of conspiracy which is a kind of collective cowardice in the face of the emperors flowing robes. A 'conspiracy' of 'going along to get along'..

    911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance

    9/11 is considerably more complex than any of the three examples you cite. You (different to JR’s lunacy) read more into what I’ve said than is there, a more typical (and benign) sort of serving one’s own argument. For some of my speculation (note I am specifying these are speculations) you may read some of my actual thoughts on the matter in part two (analysis section) of this piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/02/24/profits-of-war/

    ^

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Could Cheney’s team all have been Israeli assets? It seems unlikely.
     
    I see it as ..

    competing elements whose interests often line up.
     
    look at how Cheney's Halliburton cleaned up [pun intended] over there

    They're all cut from the same cloth. Self-interest. It seems to be what defines a politician or huge corporation executive these days, (perhaps always has). A clinically psychopathic wiliness to disregard the suffering of any and all who can be tossed under the bus to advance their self-interest.

    From Cheney to Rupert Murdoch to all the rest of the whores and liars and thieving murderers, not to mention traitors.

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I'd really rather not know.

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I'm not sure what we're debating, except the peripheral logistics.

    Building Seven does not lie.

    The BBC reported it coming down before it did.

    The evidence of the crime was destroyed

    they didn't want any investigation

    the flight data recorders are missing or 'damaged'.. the videos from the Pentagon are missing or too hurtful for us to watch out of concerns for "national security".

    My only question is are the people who still doubt that it was a false flag too stupid or morally terrified at the truth or complicit somehow- if for no other reason than because they fear what the truth getting out would mean. I.e. some kind of foggy subconscious fear that the USA is not full of 'exceptional' people in the way they like to fool themselves. Or that the "Jews" will have something to answer for. Or some other deep fear. Perhaps that the Republicans (or Democrats) will suffer politically. I'm not too sure what motivates people these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Rurik says:

    Well Sam, it’s true that it was the ease with which I was able to post to this site that opened the door to my participation here. Had I been forced to jump through hoops, I probably would have wandered off.

    But then it seems to me that the wider ranging the viewpoints- the better the experience, (with the exception of comments like ‘Siri, are we there yet’ or “you catch on fast” which I put down to too much vino ; ). Anyways, I try to be respectful, I know I’m a guest on Ron’s site, and I think we’re all grateful for what he’s created. There are a lot of high powered dendrites and synapses firing about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I certainly agree. I had written in another post:



    On a broader observation of the present forum, which I find rather interesting in general, the constant and thoughtless use of “Hasbarist” etc by some, is actually detrimental to its ultimate success, I would hazard to opine. It would tend to cause the loss of curious and well-informed readership. I am utterly convinced that many writers here, who so obviously resent a contrary opinion, would abjectly flounder and fail, if placed in the view of a wider audience, which one supposes is the objective of the UR, in the first place.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1021458

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. KA says:
    @Sam Shama
    That's it. Yet there are those who speculate, rather believe (if you have followed this thread), that the "dancing Israelis" were somehow connected to the actual attacks, managed the 19 "patsies" into crashing into the WTC and then (after 2 months of questioning) released by FBI (on orders from the neocon bosses).

    The Israeli connection imo is much simpler. Higher level Mossad (as well as Egyptian and British intel) did have a great deal of chatter data to conclude that some attacks on highly visible and populated targets were imminent, and communicated the same to the CIA and FBI. I am sure this information filtered down to the button men. The "dancing Israelis" were very likely low level Mossad, infiltrating the Patterson, NJ Arab hotspot, got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view. Their behaviour (which is basically hearsay), to put it mildly, was immature.

    On 910 one day earlier WASHINGTON TIMES ran a report gathered by SAMS ( US. army’s SCHOLL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES ) – ” Of the Mossad ,the Israeli intelligence service,the SAMS officer say: Wildcard,Rithless and cunning. Has capacity to target US forces and make it look like Palestinian/ Arab act”

    Donald Rumsfield on 910 , one day before 911
    to Pentagon ” the topic today is an adversary that poses a threat ,a serious threat,to the security of USA” . He asserts ” much subtler,more implacable, more dangerous than Soviet ever been ”
    He informed” more deadly,” much closer to home ” and ” crushes new ideas” with ” brutal consistency and disrupts the defense of US”

    ( A Pretext to War James Bamford ) also quoted by Frank Rich in NYT
    Culled from Commondreams.org
    What Rumsfield knew ,what was he referring to?
    But next day same Rumsfield jumped the guns by 911 feet and squarely blamed Iraq for being that deadly much closer implacable worse than Soviet anti US enemy.

    It can all be explained as nothing but attempts to create a fear psychosis among Americans . 911 ,when happened , was used and directed to the same goal – create fear ,submission,hatred,animosity and impotence .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eesNPluB2w
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Sam Shama says:
    @KA
    On 910 one day earlier WASHINGTON TIMES ran a report gathered by SAMS ( US. army's SCHOLL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES ) - " Of the Mossad ,the Israeli intelligence service,the SAMS officer say: Wildcard,Rithless and cunning. Has capacity to target US forces and make it look like Palestinian/ Arab act"

    Donald Rumsfield on 910 , one day before 911
    to Pentagon " the topic today is an adversary that poses a threat ,a serious threat,to the security of USA" . He asserts " much subtler,more implacable, more dangerous than Soviet ever been "
    He informed" more deadly," much closer to home " and " crushes new ideas" with " brutal consistency and disrupts the defense of US"

    ( A Pretext to War James Bamford ) also quoted by Frank Rich in NYT
    Culled from Commondreams.org
    What Rumsfield knew ,what was he referring to?
    But next day same Rumsfield jumped the guns by 911 feet and squarely blamed Iraq for being that deadly much closer implacable worse than Soviet anti US enemy.

    It can all be explained as nothing but attempts to create a fear psychosis among Americans . 911 ,when happened , was used and directed to the same goal - create fear ,submission,hatred,animosity and impotence .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. geokat62 says:
    @KA
    Dancing Israelis were caught in broad daylight with ,maps,and multiple passports plus cash. ( 4700.00 dollars in a sock ) When asked,they told the police " we are not your enemy. Arabs are your enemy"
    They also said" we wanted to document the event". Israeli gov admitted that they were spies . 2 of them were working for Mossad at that time.
    Urban Moving company 's owner managed to escape from US and landed in Israel .
    The releases of these 5 from detention facility was made possible by 2 prominent NewYork congressmen and negotiated by Alan Dershowitz .
    The names of the dancing Israelis appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database .
    Despite the unanswered questions,they were allowed to leave . Despite the potential of the clues, this angle was not followed or discussed by NYT,CNN,WSJ or NY Post or Cabinet members or Presidential hopefuls or mentioned by 911 commission. ( Christopher Ketcham in COUNTERPUNCH ,2007 Vol 14,No 3/4 )

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI. ( Justin Raimondo has documented this extensively in antiwar.com) at a time when media was unearthing secrets of Saddam in the mix of sand,alcohol,immigration,drug abuse,and fantasy of the homeless person in dire need of money and a place to live in faraway Germany ,Prague,Jordan.

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI.

    Speaking of the Anthrax attacks, here’s a comment I previously posted here at UR:

    Speaking of “Still a whodunit and nobody cares anymore,” whatever happened to the investigation into the Anthrax attacks?

    The letters containing anthrax that were sent to Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, (both had been attempting to slow the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act), read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.

    It’d be fascinating to get a glimpse of the Mossad’s “to do” list!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?

    Or, was the last sentence a purely orthogonal wonderment?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. geokat62 says:
    @Rurik

    inform Freddy boy that the black kid in the video is 10x as smart as he is.
     
    Hey JR, I don't and never have suspected that Freddie's problem was a lack of smarts. Shucks no. It isn't that he's dumb, but rather that he's a venal coward who likes his invites to Washington DC cocktail parties a little too much. He's like so many alas. I think of SCOTUS justice Roberts and the way people who thought they knew him were/are shocked at how willing he is to use the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold as toilet paper. These intelligent men who so many people count on are willing to betray everything for a little bit of vanity-assuaging, ego massaging 'acceptance' by people who can't stand them. It's a conundrum.

    Would that be understandable? I think so.
     
    then we agree

    Does that ever happen? Nope. Why? I dunno.
     
    me either

    I can think of a lot of people who have every right to exact justice/retribution. The relatives at Waco for instance, or the people who lost loved ones when Clinton bombed Serbia. If one of them tried to hold Clinton to account, who could blame them?

    All I can say is that for myself, even if I've been wronged, I try to forgive and move on. Life is precious and should not be tossed away if one can avoid doing so, but then when that guy shot the man who molested his son, everyone understood and even applauded his courage and humanity. I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.

    >><<

    I remember watching that video of Farrakhan a while back and sending it to a few people I know. I was very impressed and have much more respect for the man, racist tho that he is. But he calls it straight. If Americans are that cowardly and pathetic, then we deserve what we get.

    I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.

    Regarding non-violence, here is a comment I posted previously at UR:

    “The only practical political antidote to violence is peaceful resistance.”

    Prof. Michael Neumann completely demolishes this myth:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/08/nonviolence-its-histories-and-myths/

    But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.

    … In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Are you suggesting the Palestinians ought to become more militant?

    Personally, I'd be for anything that helped their cause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Absolute foreknowledge of imminent Antrhrax attack by one disgraced microbiologist was also not discussed by media and was ignored by FBI.
     
    Speaking of the Anthrax attacks, here's a comment I previously posted here at UR:

    Speaking of “Still a whodunit and nobody cares anymore,” whatever happened to the investigation into the Anthrax attacks?

    The letters containing anthrax that were sent to Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, (both had been attempting to slow the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act), read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.

    It’d be fascinating to get a glimpse of the Mossad’s “to do” list!
     

    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?

    Or, was the last sentence a purely orthogonal wonderment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?
     
    I don't. That's why I was eager to get a glimpse... to be able to confirm the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    911, is more akin to something like the attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent cover up at the highest levels of our government and controlled media. Or the sinking of the Lusitania or the Gulf of Tonkin affair for instance
     
    9/11 is considerably more complex than any of the three examples you cite. You (different to JR's lunacy) read more into what I've said than is there, a more typical (and benign) sort of serving one's own argument. For some of my speculation (note I am specifying these are speculations) you may read some of my actual thoughts on the matter in part two (analysis section) of this piece:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/02/24/profits-of-war/

    ^

    Could Cheney’s team all have been Israeli assets? It seems unlikely.

    I see it as ..

    competing elements whose interests often line up.

    look at how Cheney’s Halliburton cleaned up [pun intended] over there

    They’re all cut from the same cloth. Self-interest. It seems to be what defines a politician or huge corporation executive these days, (perhaps always has). A clinically psychopathic wiliness to disregard the suffering of any and all who can be tossed under the bus to advance their self-interest.

    From Cheney to Rupert Murdoch to all the rest of the whores and liars and thieving murderers, not to mention traitors.

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I’d really rather not know.

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I’m not sure what we’re debating, except the peripheral logistics.

    Building Seven does not lie.

    The BBC reported it coming down before it did.

    The evidence of the crime was destroyed

    they didn’t want any investigation

    the flight data recorders are missing or ‘damaged’.. the videos from the Pentagon are missing or too hurtful for us to watch out of concerns for “national security”.

    My only question is are the people who still doubt that it was a false flag too stupid or morally terrified at the truth or complicit somehow- if for no other reason than because they fear what the truth getting out would mean. I.e. some kind of foggy subconscious fear that the USA is not full of ‘exceptional’ people in the way they like to fool themselves. Or that the “Jews” will have something to answer for. Or some other deep fear. Perhaps that the Republicans (or Democrats) will suffer politically. I’m not too sure what motivates people these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I’m not sure what we’re debating, except the peripheral logistics
     
    You read at the link where I provided several proposed possibilities and you've turned them into mere 'peripheral logistics' but each of those proposed scenarios poses a set of distinct problems, with possible overlap. Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven't solved the crime of 'whodunnit.' And if we had solved that, or if you believe you've solved it, returning to Sam's question, where would you point to, going forward? It's a valid question, which left unanswered, renders the entire conversation 'academic' .. Sam had asked:

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward?
     
    I'd have been very interested in a clear answer to the question (above) Sam posed to yourself

    Why I return to this thought is, I've seen presumptions of yourself I would disagree with but you would have us all assume we're on the same page. We're clearly not in my own estimation. I think you misapprehend some things. I don't dispute everything I see, it'd be the task of Sisyphus. But you do easily make assumptions. Let me give you a tip; there is this thing called ethnocentric bias, to one degree or another, everyone suffers from it. In a lesser sense it can be called cultural bias and cultures can be pretty specific, such as 'truther' movement and the like.

    If you cannot set that bias aside in yourself, your analytical abilities, no matter how incisive, will drift into what amounts to a faith-based initiative. When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving? If that had happened to you, would you even know it? An automatic inclination to reject the idea should be the 1st red flag you might actually suffer the problem.

    More importantly in my view is, why does this s**t happen. You state:

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I’d really rather not know
     
    Wasn't is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to "Know thyself" ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/15/youve-got-apes/

    We're a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Sam Shama says:
    @Rurik
    Well Sam, it's true that it was the ease with which I was able to post to this site that opened the door to my participation here. Had I been forced to jump through hoops, I probably would have wandered off.

    But then it seems to me that the wider ranging the viewpoints- the better the experience, (with the exception of comments like 'Siri, are we there yet' or “you catch on fast” which I put down to too much vino ; ). Anyways, I try to be respectful, I know I'm a guest on Ron's site, and I think we're all grateful for what he's created. There are a lot of high powered dendrites and synapses firing about.

    I certainly agree. I had written in another post:

    On a broader observation of the present forum, which I find rather interesting in general, the constant and thoughtless use of “Hasbarist” etc by some, is actually detrimental to its ultimate success, I would hazard to opine. It would tend to cause the loss of curious and well-informed readership. I am utterly convinced that many writers here, who so obviously resent a contrary opinion, would abjectly flounder and fail, if placed in the view of a wider audience, which one supposes is the objective of the UR, in the first place.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1021458

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?

    Or, was the last sentence a purely orthogonal wonderment?

    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?

    I don’t. That’s why I was eager to get a glimpse… to be able to confirm the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    I don’t. That’s why I was eager to get a glimpse… to be able to confirm the truth.
     
    Righto. Well I'm off to get it for you. As well as those from the CIA, NSA, FBI and possibly AIPAC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    And how do you know that it was Mossad that wrote that note and delivered the Anthrax?
     
    I don't. That's why I was eager to get a glimpse... to be able to confirm the truth.

    I don’t. That’s why I was eager to get a glimpse… to be able to confirm the truth.

    Righto. Well I’m off to get it for you. As well as those from the CIA, NSA, FBI and possibly AIPAC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Rurik

    Could Cheney’s team all have been Israeli assets? It seems unlikely.
     
    I see it as ..

    competing elements whose interests often line up.
     
    look at how Cheney's Halliburton cleaned up [pun intended] over there

    They're all cut from the same cloth. Self-interest. It seems to be what defines a politician or huge corporation executive these days, (perhaps always has). A clinically psychopathic wiliness to disregard the suffering of any and all who can be tossed under the bus to advance their self-interest.

    From Cheney to Rupert Murdoch to all the rest of the whores and liars and thieving murderers, not to mention traitors.

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I'd really rather not know.

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I'm not sure what we're debating, except the peripheral logistics.

    Building Seven does not lie.

    The BBC reported it coming down before it did.

    The evidence of the crime was destroyed

    they didn't want any investigation

    the flight data recorders are missing or 'damaged'.. the videos from the Pentagon are missing or too hurtful for us to watch out of concerns for "national security".

    My only question is are the people who still doubt that it was a false flag too stupid or morally terrified at the truth or complicit somehow- if for no other reason than because they fear what the truth getting out would mean. I.e. some kind of foggy subconscious fear that the USA is not full of 'exceptional' people in the way they like to fool themselves. Or that the "Jews" will have something to answer for. Or some other deep fear. Perhaps that the Republicans (or Democrats) will suffer politically. I'm not too sure what motivates people these days.

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I’m not sure what we’re debating, except the peripheral logistics

    You read at the link where I provided several proposed possibilities and you’ve turned them into mere ‘peripheral logistics’ but each of those proposed scenarios poses a set of distinct problems, with possible overlap. Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven’t solved the crime of ‘whodunnit.’ And if we had solved that, or if you believe you’ve solved it, returning to Sam’s question, where would you point to, going forward? It’s a valid question, which left unanswered, renders the entire conversation ‘academic’ .. Sam had asked:

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward?

    I’d have been very interested in a clear answer to the question (above) Sam posed to yourself

    Why I return to this thought is, I’ve seen presumptions of yourself I would disagree with but you would have us all assume we’re on the same page. We’re clearly not in my own estimation. I think you misapprehend some things. I don’t dispute everything I see, it’d be the task of Sisyphus. But you do easily make assumptions. Let me give you a tip; there is this thing called ethnocentric bias, to one degree or another, everyone suffers from it. In a lesser sense it can be called cultural bias and cultures can be pretty specific, such as ‘truther’ movement and the like.

    If you cannot set that bias aside in yourself, your analytical abilities, no matter how incisive, will drift into what amounts to a faith-based initiative. When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving? If that had happened to you, would you even know it? An automatic inclination to reject the idea should be the 1st red flag you might actually suffer the problem.

    More importantly in my view is, why does this s**t happen. You state:

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I’d really rather not know

    Wasn’t is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to “Know thyself” ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/15/youve-got-apes/

    We’re a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven’t solved the crime of ‘whodunnit.’ And if we had solved that, or if you believe you’ve solved it, returning to Sam’s question, where would you point to, going forward?
     
    Going forward my best suggestion to us all is to first get people to question the official narrative. Tell them about building Seven. Use the Internet to spread the truth. Talk to people.

    Once there is a critical mass of people who doubt the lies we're being force fed, then perhaps cracks will appear in the fabric of the iron matrix we're all marinating in. People will shout down Larry Silverstein when he shows up somewhere. Demanding he answer some questions. I've already seen video of this kind of thing. When they can't crawl out from under their heavily secure rocks they're hiding under, and people all know when the next false flag happens, just who is responsible, then perhaps they're be some hope for the future.

    How's that?

    One of my favorite guys is the former director of studies at the US Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky.

    Check out what he's been saying and doing. That kind of thing.

    presumptions of yourself I would disagree with
     
    don't you mean presumptions by myself?

    probably not alas. I'm starting to suspect you do actually mean presumptions of myself. ; )

    I think you misapprehend some things.
     
    of this I am absolutely certain, and that is why I am so in earnest. Perhaps in the process, others might benefit.

    When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving?
     
    what I can tell you is that my religion has nothing to do with my ethnicity or gender or culture, per se. No. My religion can be reduced to one word, and that word is the truth. That is my religion. The search for the truth. Come what may..

    Wasn’t is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to “Know thyself” ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:
     
    Indeed. "the unexamined life is a life not worth living'.

    and it wasn't Western Civilization that he thus exhorted, but the individual, without which, there is no one to exhort

    We’re a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects
     
    well, reading your latest (my favorite so far), I'm compelled to agree to some extent

    With the cultural denial of female intelligence and consequent male mono-sexual narcissistic (or ego-self-image) mentality, the European based cultural ego’s logic is carried to insane collective extreme incapable of solving the problems it creates. With fully one half (an entire brain actually, we each have a ‘pair’ of brains) of intelligence repressed,
     
    You excoriate Western Civilization for its specifically "denial of female intelligence", repressing the intelligence of half the population, and what you seem to be glaringly ignoring (repressing?) is that it is European culture that stands out heads and tails over all other major cultures for its manifest elevation of the female of the species to first-class citizen status. Women are treated by our culture and the culture of the west, (and Scandinavia in particular) as at least equals. They even dominate the universities in the West. Did you know that? Who but the west treats its women with such respect and even pedestalization? On which continent are they just as entitled to total equality under not just the law, but in every way imaginable? Africa? Asia? S. America?

    I have to wonder if there's just a hint of some bias going on here.

    as for the other stuff

    the parallel lines write these words: Self-Image, Fear and Ego.
     

    European science blindly pushes into unseen reality, and because there are no cultural reference points, their science cannot grasp consequence of going where there is no cultural understanding, not knowing how to navigate the unseen reality.
     
    I find it very good.

    For myself, as I look around and see what the white man has done to this continent, and what he's going to do, and why, I'm convinced that no matter how savage or primitive or cruel (especially to his women) that the native American "Indian' was to each other, he sure did a better job of being a custodian of these lands and its denizens than what we're doing to it. It is a monstrous sin what's being done, and where it will lead, and why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    That's it. Yet there are those who speculate, rather believe (if you have followed this thread), that the "dancing Israelis" were somehow connected to the actual attacks, managed the 19 "patsies" into crashing into the WTC and then (after 2 months of questioning) released by FBI (on orders from the neocon bosses).

    The Israeli connection imo is much simpler. Higher level Mossad (as well as Egyptian and British intel) did have a great deal of chatter data to conclude that some attacks on highly visible and populated targets were imminent, and communicated the same to the CIA and FBI. I am sure this information filtered down to the button men. The "dancing Israelis" were very likely low level Mossad, infiltrating the Patterson, NJ Arab hotspot, got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view. Their behaviour (which is basically hearsay), to put it mildly, was immature.

    The “dancing Israelis” … got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view.

    I thought you were going to write: “The “dancing Israelis” … got wind of the attack and rushed to inform the appropriate authorities.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I am simply speculating. I don't think these characters were anywhere near the chain of command to inform the FBI (that was done much before....weeks and likely months) of intense chatter. The "dancing Israelis" probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Rurik says:
    @geokat62

    I would say politically, temper tantrums are always disastrous, and like Gandhi or MLK, the preferred method should be non-violent resistance. Perhaps people, deep down somehow understand this.
     
    Regarding non-violence, here is a comment I posted previously at UR:

    “The only practical political antidote to violence is peaceful resistance.”

    Prof. Michael Neumann completely demolishes this myth:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/08/nonviolence-its-histories-and-myths/

    But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.

    … In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.
     

    Are you suggesting the Palestinians ought to become more militant?

    Personally, I’d be for anything that helped their cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Anyways, you seem just as convinced of 911 being a false flag as any of the rest of us. So I’m not sure what we’re debating, except the peripheral logistics
     
    You read at the link where I provided several proposed possibilities and you've turned them into mere 'peripheral logistics' but each of those proposed scenarios poses a set of distinct problems, with possible overlap. Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven't solved the crime of 'whodunnit.' And if we had solved that, or if you believe you've solved it, returning to Sam's question, where would you point to, going forward? It's a valid question, which left unanswered, renders the entire conversation 'academic' .. Sam had asked:

    So given that the choir is already behind the notion, what precisely is the game plan going forward?
     
    I'd have been very interested in a clear answer to the question (above) Sam posed to yourself

    Why I return to this thought is, I've seen presumptions of yourself I would disagree with but you would have us all assume we're on the same page. We're clearly not in my own estimation. I think you misapprehend some things. I don't dispute everything I see, it'd be the task of Sisyphus. But you do easily make assumptions. Let me give you a tip; there is this thing called ethnocentric bias, to one degree or another, everyone suffers from it. In a lesser sense it can be called cultural bias and cultures can be pretty specific, such as 'truther' movement and the like.

    If you cannot set that bias aside in yourself, your analytical abilities, no matter how incisive, will drift into what amounts to a faith-based initiative. When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving? If that had happened to you, would you even know it? An automatic inclination to reject the idea should be the 1st red flag you might actually suffer the problem.

    More importantly in my view is, why does this s**t happen. You state:

    My biggest fear, delving into this swamp, is that looking deep enough into the abyss, I think there are things about the human animal I’d really rather not know
     
    Wasn't is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to "Know thyself" ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/15/youve-got-apes/

    We're a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects

    Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven’t solved the crime of ‘whodunnit.’ And if we had solved that, or if you believe you’ve solved it, returning to Sam’s question, where would you point to, going forward?

    Going forward my best suggestion to us all is to first get people to question the official narrative. Tell them about building Seven. Use the Internet to spread the truth. Talk to people.

    Once there is a critical mass of people who doubt the lies we’re being force fed, then perhaps cracks will appear in the fabric of the iron matrix we’re all marinating in. People will shout down Larry Silverstein when he shows up somewhere. Demanding he answer some questions. I’ve already seen video of this kind of thing. When they can’t crawl out from under their heavily secure rocks they’re hiding under, and people all know when the next false flag happens, just who is responsible, then perhaps they’re be some hope for the future.

    How’s that?

    One of my favorite guys is the former director of studies at the US Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky.

    Check out what he’s been saying and doing. That kind of thing.

    presumptions of yourself I would disagree with

    don’t you mean presumptions by myself?

    probably not alas. I’m starting to suspect you do actually mean presumptions of myself. ; )

    I think you misapprehend some things.

    of this I am absolutely certain, and that is why I am so in earnest. Perhaps in the process, others might benefit.

    When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving?

    what I can tell you is that my religion has nothing to do with my ethnicity or gender or culture, per se. No. My religion can be reduced to one word, and that word is the truth. That is my religion. The search for the truth. Come what may..

    Wasn’t is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to “Know thyself” ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:

    Indeed. “the unexamined life is a life not worth living’.

    and it wasn’t Western Civilization that he thus exhorted, but the individual, without which, there is no one to exhort

    We’re a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects

    well, reading your latest (my favorite so far), I’m compelled to agree to some extent

    With the cultural denial of female intelligence and consequent male mono-sexual narcissistic (or ego-self-image) mentality, the European based cultural ego’s logic is carried to insane collective extreme incapable of solving the problems it creates. With fully one half (an entire brain actually, we each have a ‘pair’ of brains) of intelligence repressed,

    You excoriate Western Civilization for its specifically “denial of female intelligence”, repressing the intelligence of half the population, and what you seem to be glaringly ignoring (repressing?) is that it is European culture that stands out heads and tails over all other major cultures for its manifest elevation of the female of the species to first-class citizen status. Women are treated by our culture and the culture of the west, (and Scandinavia in particular) as at least equals. They even dominate the universities in the West. Did you know that? Who but the west treats its women with such respect and even pedestalization? On which continent are they just as entitled to total equality under not just the law, but in every way imaginable? Africa? Asia? S. America?

    I have to wonder if there’s just a hint of some bias going on here.

    as for the other stuff

    the parallel lines write these words: Self-Image, Fear and Ego.

    European science blindly pushes into unseen reality, and because there are no cultural reference points, their science cannot grasp consequence of going where there is no cultural understanding, not knowing how to navigate the unseen reality.

    I find it very good.

    For myself, as I look around and see what the white man has done to this continent, and what he’s going to do, and why, I’m convinced that no matter how savage or primitive or cruel (especially to his women) that the native American “Indian’ was to each other, he sure did a better job of being a custodian of these lands and its denizens than what we’re doing to it. It is a monstrous sin what’s being done, and where it will lead, and why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    European culture that stands out heads and tails over all other major cultures for its manifest elevation of the female of the species to first-class citizen status
     
    I'd merely note the 1st Spaniards in America were amazed at the (real) equality of the women in a culture without modern 'glass ceilings' and the Spaniards haven't changed much:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/10/a-coward-named-machismo/

    I’m convinced that no matter how savage or primitive or cruel (especially to his women) that the native American “Indian’ was to each other
     
    I think you must have gotten your impressions from Mary Reinhart novels, you'll find her work referenced here:

    http://www.dickshovel.com/ind.html

    ^ it's about the sort of horseshit you just spouted

    And here's a bit of authentic history pointiing to who the real savages are, including where (some ) contemporary Native Americans learned to beat women:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/10/06/modern-indian-society-2/

    If you're going to be a 'renaissance man' you should know what you're talking about -
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Rurik

    Yes, it would appear we have a false flag but haven’t solved the crime of ‘whodunnit.’ And if we had solved that, or if you believe you’ve solved it, returning to Sam’s question, where would you point to, going forward?
     
    Going forward my best suggestion to us all is to first get people to question the official narrative. Tell them about building Seven. Use the Internet to spread the truth. Talk to people.

    Once there is a critical mass of people who doubt the lies we're being force fed, then perhaps cracks will appear in the fabric of the iron matrix we're all marinating in. People will shout down Larry Silverstein when he shows up somewhere. Demanding he answer some questions. I've already seen video of this kind of thing. When they can't crawl out from under their heavily secure rocks they're hiding under, and people all know when the next false flag happens, just who is responsible, then perhaps they're be some hope for the future.

    How's that?

    One of my favorite guys is the former director of studies at the US Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky.

    Check out what he's been saying and doing. That kind of thing.

    presumptions of yourself I would disagree with
     
    don't you mean presumptions by myself?

    probably not alas. I'm starting to suspect you do actually mean presumptions of myself. ; )

    I think you misapprehend some things.
     
    of this I am absolutely certain, and that is why I am so in earnest. Perhaps in the process, others might benefit.

    When does pursuit of what you believe become a religion where worship is the point, more so than problem solving?
     
    what I can tell you is that my religion has nothing to do with my ethnicity or gender or culture, per se. No. My religion can be reduced to one word, and that word is the truth. That is my religion. The search for the truth. Come what may..

    Wasn’t is Socrates exhorted Western civilization to “Know thyself” ? My take is, his is a miserably failed endeavor:
     
    Indeed. "the unexamined life is a life not worth living'.

    and it wasn't Western Civilization that he thus exhorted, but the individual, without which, there is no one to exhort

    We’re a long ways from on the same page, other than some superficial aspects
     
    well, reading your latest (my favorite so far), I'm compelled to agree to some extent

    With the cultural denial of female intelligence and consequent male mono-sexual narcissistic (or ego-self-image) mentality, the European based cultural ego’s logic is carried to insane collective extreme incapable of solving the problems it creates. With fully one half (an entire brain actually, we each have a ‘pair’ of brains) of intelligence repressed,
     
    You excoriate Western Civilization for its specifically "denial of female intelligence", repressing the intelligence of half the population, and what you seem to be glaringly ignoring (repressing?) is that it is European culture that stands out heads and tails over all other major cultures for its manifest elevation of the female of the species to first-class citizen status. Women are treated by our culture and the culture of the west, (and Scandinavia in particular) as at least equals. They even dominate the universities in the West. Did you know that? Who but the west treats its women with such respect and even pedestalization? On which continent are they just as entitled to total equality under not just the law, but in every way imaginable? Africa? Asia? S. America?

    I have to wonder if there's just a hint of some bias going on here.

    as for the other stuff

    the parallel lines write these words: Self-Image, Fear and Ego.
     

    European science blindly pushes into unseen reality, and because there are no cultural reference points, their science cannot grasp consequence of going where there is no cultural understanding, not knowing how to navigate the unseen reality.
     
    I find it very good.

    For myself, as I look around and see what the white man has done to this continent, and what he's going to do, and why, I'm convinced that no matter how savage or primitive or cruel (especially to his women) that the native American "Indian' was to each other, he sure did a better job of being a custodian of these lands and its denizens than what we're doing to it. It is a monstrous sin what's being done, and where it will lead, and why.

    European culture that stands out heads and tails over all other major cultures for its manifest elevation of the female of the species to first-class citizen status

    I’d merely note the 1st Spaniards in America were amazed at the (real) equality of the women in a culture without modern ‘glass ceilings’ and the Spaniards haven’t changed much:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/10/a-coward-named-machismo/

    I’m convinced that no matter how savage or primitive or cruel (especially to his women) that the native American “Indian’ was to each other

    I think you must have gotten your impressions from Mary Reinhart novels, you’ll find her work referenced here:

    http://www.dickshovel.com/ind.html

    ^ it’s about the sort of horseshit you just spouted

    And here’s a bit of authentic history pointiing to who the real savages are, including where (some ) contemporary Native Americans learned to beat women:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/10/06/modern-indian-society-2/

    If you’re going to be a ‘renaissance man’ you should know what you’re talking about -

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Rurik

    The “this” in my original sentence referred to the dancing Israelis, not to who killed whom.
     
    you see no connection between the two events?

    the 'dancing Israelis' and 'who killed who'(m)?

    The only false flag that comes to mind that was used in just such a way as 911 was the burning of the Reichstag which was the spark that led to Hitler's consolidation of power over Germany and eventually the horrors of WWII and sixty million people in a holocaust of death and misery like the world had never known. Not to mention that other Holocaust that was all a consequence of the people who burned the Reichstag getting away with it.

    If the real perpetrators of the Reichstag fire could have been caught and punished and WWII could have been prevented, I feel that would have been a worthy effort, no?

    So too with 911. If the dancing Israelis are proof of Israeli participation on 911 at the highest levels of its government, and upon further examination, proof of elements in our own government's complicity on that day, then if that knowledge could be used to bring the guilty to justice and prevent yet another banker's world war, like they're busy trying to foment as we speak, with their efforts in the Ukraine, don't you think it makes sense to at least pursue the leads?

    You keep telling me that you've already answered all these questions, but then again, as you point out, I'm a newcomer here. So why not just humor me with your explanations once again, and if there's a wandering soul out there who stumbles across this oubliette and out of curiosity peers in, they too will be able to drink of the fruit of your insights...

    Or should we all just consider the matter of 911 settled?

    Are we just wasting our time pursuing chimeras. The people who died on 911 are dead. (just like the guys on the USS Liberty, or the million or so innocent Iraqis, or Libyans...) Nothing we do can bring them back. Let's stop worrying about who killed who', and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell's wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn't Obama sending troops?!

    Let’s stop worrying about who killed who’, and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell’s wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn’t Obama sending troops?!

    I didn’t forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you’ve made an assertion your religion is truth. Firstly, these are Pentagon and Department of State talking points. Secondly, it was Carla Del Ponte was promptly pushed out of her UN role on the Syria gas issue when she pointed the finger at the anti-Assad forces for false flag gas attacks early on (information developed further by independent investigators.) Thirdly, Putin shooting planes out of the sky is something even the phony, politicized, Dutch led investigation won’t dare conclude. And fourthly, you consistently prop up the patently dishonest (classic troll technique) act represented in JR.

    Sayanara dude, I’m indulging myself in the thought of *JIDF* (again) or like minded folk, here’s a fine compilation of candidates:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

    ^

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I didn’t forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you’ve made an assertion your religion is truth.
     
    You took the words right out of my mouth!
    , @Rurik
    I guess you don't do sarcasm eh?

    Those "talking points" you point out were things I was mocking as obvious absurdities. This is a post from a thread you were on, even if you missed it. It shows perfectly that I'm quite aware of the State Dept. penchant for lies. (I even put them in bold for you just for your convenience ; )

    •Rurik
    July 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm GMT
    @Wizard of Oz


    Now if you were to make a nuanced distinction between the very latgely commercial – e.g. Murdoch, the propagandist as in anything in English from Russia or Beijing, the largely non-commercial and semi independent like the BBC and Guardian etc etc….that could be quite interesting.
     
    OK then ..

    For a distinction between the controlled media of the west vs. Russian (I don’t know much about the Chinese media), I offer the following for your edification

    In the west as regards Saddam’s WMD, all we heard about was lies intended to justify attacking an innocent nation and its people based on evidence that was lied about. When it turned out to be lies, the entire western media collectively yawned and just kept the lies coming. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Osama the mystery cadaver that our SEAL team heroically took down while the entire western media collectively lied about virtually every single thing mentioned without exception. And when all these vile and disgraceful lies were proven to be lies, they just tell more lies.

    I could on for quite some time about the lies our controlled western media tell. Starting of course with all the other lies that were used to foment wars and their subsequent slaughter of innocent people by the millions. Lies and the consequent wars that now in retrospect, people should be dancing at the end of a rope for telling. But are rather there, still entrenched in front of the camera telling us all more lies every day.

    Recent lies of course are the lies that are told about the events of 911. The lies and vile innuendoes that were repeated relentlessly about Saddam’s terrorism ties to 911. The lies about Afghanistan’s guilt for 911 and the lies that were told to get us into that catastrophic war. The lies about the Syrian gas attack. The lies about Benghazi and how that silly movie motivated the whole thing and caught them all off guard. Now the lies about how Putin shot down the plane.

    All these lies are told with an amazing amount of uniformity from the entire length and breath of the west, from Alaska to New Zealand. It’s as if when the wall came down, it was because the Soviet Union had now come across the wall and had taken root over here in the former West- where truth was something of value, and turned into the new west, where lies are ubiquitous, and the only thing that seems certain, is that if Tony Blair, or George Bush, or David Cameron or Barak Obama are talking, then they are lying.

    Vs. Putin who to my knowledge has not spoken one lie that I know of. (please enlighten me if you can). Who has not made one aggressive act against any of his neighbors or anyone else, but rather has been forced to scramble to the aid of his friends as international pieces of shit like John McCain and his tools like Saakashvili, (who now finds his pathetic self in Ukraine acting on behalf of the douche bag McCain once again)- start fires all over the place where Putin has to waste his time putting them out.

    Putin is forced to be the only adult in the room when he’s confronted by the west today. He’s had to deal with McCain’s BS in South Ossetia just like today’s he’s having to do the same thing in Crimea. And he’s always honest about it (that’s why his people love him), while our politicians and media only tell lies on top of lies after lies and more lies. That’s why their mistrusted and hated universally.

    Is that a little distinction for ya?

    • Replies: @geokat62

     

    Maybe you could be forgiven for smugly replying with that same snide and hollow pretension your known for, even when you're clearly wrong, because as I'm starting to see, sarcasm may be a bit too nuanced for you. (being as you like to pigeon hole us all into neat little groupings to assuage your narrow bigotries) But that other thing bouncing around here even replied to this post! So it has zero excuse for not seeing the glaring, dripping, over-the-top sarcasm.

    Yet look at how is rollicks around here in its exuberant inanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    The “dancing Israelis” ... got wind of the attack and rushed from one spot to another, until they got a clear view.
     
    I thought you were going to write: "The “dancing Israelis” ... got wind of the attack and rushed to inform the appropriate authorities."

    I am simply speculating. I don’t think these characters were anywhere near the chain of command to inform the FBI (that was done much before….weeks and likely months) of intense chatter. The “dancing Israelis” probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I am simply speculating.
     
    I wish more commenters began their posts with these words... especially those who claim to be truth-seekers!

    The “dancing Israelis” probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.
     
    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant... but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. geokat62 says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Let’s stop worrying about who killed who’, and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell’s wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn’t Obama sending troops?!
     
    I didn't forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you've made an assertion your religion is truth. Firstly, these are Pentagon and Department of State talking points. Secondly, it was Carla Del Ponte was promptly pushed out of her UN role on the Syria gas issue when she pointed the finger at the anti-Assad forces for false flag gas attacks early on (information developed further by independent investigators.) Thirdly, Putin shooting planes out of the sky is something even the phony, politicized, Dutch led investigation won't dare conclude. And fourthly, you consistently prop up the patently dishonest (classic troll technique) act represented in JR.

    Sayanara dude, I'm indulging myself in the thought of *JIDF* (again) or like minded folk, here's a fine compilation of candidates:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

    ^

    I didn’t forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you’ve made an assertion your religion is truth.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    I am simply speculating. I don't think these characters were anywhere near the chain of command to inform the FBI (that was done much before....weeks and likely months) of intense chatter. The "dancing Israelis" probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.

    I am simply speculating.

    I wish more commenters began their posts with these words… especially those who claim to be truth-seekers!

    The “dancing Israelis” probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.

    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant… but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant… but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!
     
    It really does not, if you look at my views carefully. If it has a slant, it is no more than that which characterises the opinions of the opposition.

    Truth is an ephemeral concept, especially as it applies to political subjects. Truth of the matter is, I agree with Ronald's hypothesis : the goals of disparate groups align occasionally, which at times works for the betterment of the larger populace and at other times not as much.

    For example I think that AIPAC et al. are seriously in the wrong on the Iran deal, and their interests are not aligning with the interests of any group other than Netanyahu and his coterie of deluded individuals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    I am simply speculating.
     
    I wish more commenters began their posts with these words... especially those who claim to be truth-seekers!

    The “dancing Israelis” probably caught the trickle down of information and after the 1st tower was hit, rushed around to film it.
     
    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant... but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!

    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant… but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!

    It really does not, if you look at my views carefully. If it has a slant, it is no more than that which characterises the opinions of the opposition.

    Truth is an ephemeral concept, especially as it applies to political subjects. Truth of the matter is, I agree with Ronald’s hypothesis : the goals of disparate groups align occasionally, which at times works for the betterment of the larger populace and at other times not as much.

    For example I think that AIPAC et al. are seriously in the wrong on the Iran deal, and their interests are not aligning with the interests of any group other than Netanyahu and his coterie of deluded individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West

    Truth is an ephemeral concept
     
    It really is. Just like reality is a fluid thing in a constant state of change. If you think about it, people's perceptions are fragile as a consequence. Similar to someone or something is frozen like a snapshot in one's memory and the surprise when meeting again after quite some time to note perhaps unanticipated changes. As well, institutions, even nations can suffer from a lack of necessary elasticity to adapt and become irrelevant or even brittle and break. As went Sparta...
    , @geokat62

    For example I think that AIPAC et al. are seriously in the wrong on the Iran deal...
     
    That's strange... I could have swore you were opposed to this deal, as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Sam Shama

    Your speculation always seems to take on a particular slant… but then again you never announced (like some others) that your goal was seeking the truth!
     
    It really does not, if you look at my views carefully. If it has a slant, it is no more than that which characterises the opinions of the opposition.

    Truth is an ephemeral concept, especially as it applies to political subjects. Truth of the matter is, I agree with Ronald's hypothesis : the goals of disparate groups align occasionally, which at times works for the betterment of the larger populace and at other times not as much.

    For example I think that AIPAC et al. are seriously in the wrong on the Iran deal, and their interests are not aligning with the interests of any group other than Netanyahu and his coterie of deluded individuals.

    Truth is an ephemeral concept

    It really is. Just like reality is a fluid thing in a constant state of change. If you think about it, people’s perceptions are fragile as a consequence. Similar to someone or something is frozen like a snapshot in one’s memory and the surprise when meeting again after quite some time to note perhaps unanticipated changes. As well, institutions, even nations can suffer from a lack of necessary elasticity to adapt and become irrelevant or even brittle and break. As went Sparta…

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    I've been reading Frederick Copleston's A History of Philosophy and came across these quotes that pertain to Plato's views on truth and reality:

    Through contact with Beauty itself the human being becomes immortal and produces true virtue.

    True religion consists in a virtuous life and recognition of Reason's operation in the universe.

    Plato refused to acquiesce in the relativity of science and moral values.

    Plato meant to establish ascertained truth.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Rurik says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    Let’s stop worrying about who killed who’, and go about discussing important things like why is Assad gassing his own people?! What the hell’s wrong with that guy? Why are we allowing Putin to shoot planes out of the sky?! Why isn’t Obama sending troops?!
     
    I didn't forget this, especially now that (in your recent comment) you've made an assertion your religion is truth. Firstly, these are Pentagon and Department of State talking points. Secondly, it was Carla Del Ponte was promptly pushed out of her UN role on the Syria gas issue when she pointed the finger at the anti-Assad forces for false flag gas attacks early on (information developed further by independent investigators.) Thirdly, Putin shooting planes out of the sky is something even the phony, politicized, Dutch led investigation won't dare conclude. And fourthly, you consistently prop up the patently dishonest (classic troll technique) act represented in JR.

    Sayanara dude, I'm indulging myself in the thought of *JIDF* (again) or like minded folk, here's a fine compilation of candidates:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

    ^

    I guess you don’t do sarcasm eh?

    Those “talking points” you point out were things I was mocking as obvious absurdities. This is a post from a thread you were on, even if you missed it. It shows perfectly that I’m quite aware of the State Dept. penchant for lies. (I even put them in bold for you just for your convenience ; )

    •Rurik
    July 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm GMT

    Now if you were to make a nuanced distinction between the very latgely commercial – e.g. Murdoch, the propagandist as in anything in English from Russia or Beijing, the largely non-commercial and semi independent like the BBC and Guardian etc etc….that could be quite interesting.

    OK then ..

    For a distinction between the controlled media of the west vs. Russian (I don’t know much about the Chinese media), I offer the following for your edification

    In the west as regards Saddam’s WMD, all we heard about was lies intended to justify attacking an innocent nation and its people based on evidence that was lied about. When it turned out to be lies, the entire western media collectively yawned and just kept the lies coming. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Osama the mystery cadaver that our SEAL team heroically took down while the entire western media collectively lied about virtually every single thing mentioned without exception. And when all these vile and disgraceful lies were proven to be lies, they just tell more lies.

    I could on for quite some time about the lies our controlled western media tell. Starting of course with all the other lies that were used to foment wars and their subsequent slaughter of innocent people by the millions. Lies and the consequent wars that now in retrospect, people should be dancing at the end of a rope for telling. But are rather there, still entrenched in front of the camera telling us all more lies every day.

    Recent lies of course are the lies that are told about the events of 911. The lies and vile innuendoes that were repeated relentlessly about Saddam’s terrorism ties to 911. The lies about Afghanistan’s guilt for 911 and the lies that were told to get us into that catastrophic war. The lies about the Syrian gas attack. The lies about Benghazi and how that silly movie motivated the whole thing and caught them all off guard. Now the lies about how Putin shot down the plane.

    All these lies are told with an amazing amount of uniformity from the entire length and breath of the west, from Alaska to New Zealand. It’s as if when the wall came down, it was because the Soviet Union had now come across the wall and had taken root over here in the former West- where truth was something of value, and turned into the new west, where lies are ubiquitous, and the only thing that seems certain, is that if Tony Blair, or George Bush, or David Cameron or Barak Obama are talking, then they are lying.

    Vs. Putin who to my knowledge has not spoken one lie that I know of. (please enlighten me if you can). Who has not made one aggressive act against any of his neighbors or anyone else, but rather has been forced to scramble to the aid of his friends as international pieces of shit like John McCain and his tools like Saakashvili, (who now finds his pathetic self in Ukraine acting on behalf of the douche bag McCain once again)- start fires all over the place where Putin has to waste his time putting them out.

    Putin is forced to be the only adult in the room when he’s confronted by the west today. He’s had to deal with McCain’s BS in South Ossetia just like today’s he’s having to do the same thing in Crimea. And he’s always honest about it (that’s why his people love him), while our politicians and media only tell lies on top of lies after lies and more lies. That’s why their mistrusted and hated universally.

    Is that a little distinction for ya?

    • Replies:

    Maybe you could be forgiven for smugly replying with that same snide and hollow pretension your known for, even when you’re clearly wrong, because as I’m starting to see, sarcasm may be a bit too nuanced for you. (being as you like to pigeon hole us all into neat little groupings to assuage your narrow bigotries) But that other thing bouncing around here even replied to this post! So it has zero excuse for not seeing the glaring, dripping, over-the-top sarcasm.

    Yet look at how is rollicks around here in its exuberant inanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    You can pass this on to your bosom buddy JR (it be good for Bibi too)

    Medications are used to treat the symptoms of mental disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive illness), anxiety disorders, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sometimes medications are used with other treatments such as psychotherapy. Psychotherapy alone may be the best treatment for a person, depending on the illness and its severity. Other times, psychotherapy is combined with medications.

    This health topic includes general information on:

    Types of medications used to treat mental disorders

    Some of these medications have been available since the mid-1950s. These first-generation medications are also called conventional "typical" antipsychotics. Some of the more commonly used medications include:

    Chlorpromazine
    Haloperidol
    Perphenazine
    Fluphenazine,

    In the 1990s, new antipsychotic medications were developed. These newer medications are called second generation, or "atypical" antipsychotics.

    One of these medications was clozapine. It is a very effective medication that treats psychotic symptoms, hallucinations, and breaks with reality, such as when a person believes he or she is the president. But clozapine can sometimes cause a serious problem called agranulocytosis, which is a loss of the white blood cells that help a person fight infection. Therefore, people who take clozapine must get their white blood cell counts checked every week or two. This problem and the cost of blood tests make treatment with clozapine difficult for many people. Still, clozapine is potentially helpful for people who do not respond to other antipsychotic medications.

    Other atypical antipsychotics were developed. All of them are effective. Agranulocytosis is less likely to occur with these medications than with clozapine, but it has been reported. These include:

    Risperidone
    Olanzapine
    Quetiapine
    Ziprasidone
    Aripiprazole
    Paliperidone
    Lurasidone…

    Of course you should not self-medicate but consult with a mental health professional -
     
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I guess you don’t do sarcasm eh?
     
    I think that when it suits these guys to pretend that they don't get it (the "it" in this case being sarcasm or irony or whatever) then they don't get it -- i.e. wilful obtuseness.

    To me, it was totally obvious that you were repeating those MSM talking points ironically -- that you yourself believe the exact opposite.

    The way some of the arseholes on this site behave is just extraordinary at times. Like this Sammy Shama guy with his Pinocchio story about his ivy league shrink friend who had diagnosed me with some mental illness...

    I was thinking about that a bit more today and it's really weird. I mean, the whole idea that I (or you, say) suffer from some "obsession" about 9/11, say. I'm no shrink, but surely an obsessive disorder is about being obsessed with stuff that doesn't matter, like Jack Nicholson in that movie who suffers obsessive compulsive disorder and has all these weird obsessions, like not stepping on the cracks in the pavement when he walks down the street, stuff like that.

    The idea that being "obsessed" with the truth about 9/11 and the other false flag terrorism is a mental illness -- this surely is based on the idea that this is just a trivial, unimportant topic and that only somebody "loopy" would be obsessed with it.

    So, why are you so darned obsessed with the realization that a clique of criminals within your government murdered thousands of innocent people on 9/11, framed another set of innocent people, in order to start wars of aggression in which hundreds of thousands or millions more innocent people would ultimately die?

    How can you be obsessed by something so utterly trivial?

    You should pay attention to important things, like not stepping on the cracks in the sidewalk!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Rurik
    I guess you don't do sarcasm eh?

    Those "talking points" you point out were things I was mocking as obvious absurdities. This is a post from a thread you were on, even if you missed it. It shows perfectly that I'm quite aware of the State Dept. penchant for lies. (I even put them in bold for you just for your convenience ; )

    •Rurik
    July 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm GMT
    @Wizard of Oz


    Now if you were to make a nuanced distinction between the very latgely commercial – e.g. Murdoch, the propagandist as in anything in English from Russia or Beijing, the largely non-commercial and semi independent like the BBC and Guardian etc etc….that could be quite interesting.
     
    OK then ..

    For a distinction between the controlled media of the west vs. Russian (I don’t know much about the Chinese media), I offer the following for your edification

    In the west as regards Saddam’s WMD, all we heard about was lies intended to justify attacking an innocent nation and its people based on evidence that was lied about. When it turned out to be lies, the entire western media collectively yawned and just kept the lies coming. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Osama the mystery cadaver that our SEAL team heroically took down while the entire western media collectively lied about virtually every single thing mentioned without exception. And when all these vile and disgraceful lies were proven to be lies, they just tell more lies.

    I could on for quite some time about the lies our controlled western media tell. Starting of course with all the other lies that were used to foment wars and their subsequent slaughter of innocent people by the millions. Lies and the consequent wars that now in retrospect, people should be dancing at the end of a rope for telling. But are rather there, still entrenched in front of the camera telling us all more lies every day.

    Recent lies of course are the lies that are told about the events of 911. The lies and vile innuendoes that were repeated relentlessly about Saddam’s terrorism ties to 911. The lies about Afghanistan’s guilt for 911 and the lies that were told to get us into that catastrophic war. The lies about the Syrian gas attack. The lies about Benghazi and how that silly movie motivated the whole thing and caught them all off guard. Now the lies about how Putin shot down the plane.

    All these lies are told with an amazing amount of uniformity from the entire length and breath of the west, from Alaska to New Zealand. It’s as if when the wall came down, it was because the Soviet Union had now come across the wall and had taken root over here in the former West- where truth was something of value, and turned into the new west, where lies are ubiquitous, and the only thing that seems certain, is that if Tony Blair, or George Bush, or David Cameron or Barak Obama are talking, then they are lying.

    Vs. Putin who to my knowledge has not spoken one lie that I know of. (please enlighten me if you can). Who has not made one aggressive act against any of his neighbors or anyone else, but rather has been forced to scramble to the aid of his friends as interna