>> ^hpqp:

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.
As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/

_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA



And it's no secret that al-Qaeda was a database of "freedom fighters" of a CIA proxy army. It's also no secret they were given 6+ billion dollars in the 80s by the CIA and Saudi Intelligence to fight the Soviets over Afghanistan under the invented threat of Communism. Now here's where that "logic" comes in.

When did OBL stop working for the CIA?
OBL was immediately blamed for 9/11 (within a few hours after the attacks) and now we are fighting wars under the invented threat of Muslim jihadists.

Why were some of the alleged hijackers living with CIA and FBI informants?

Why were some of the alleged hijackers training at US military bases?

Why did Anwar al-Awlaki dine at the Pentagon just months after 9/11?

What was ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad (who wired $100,00 to Mohammed Atta) doing at the Pentagon the week leading up to and morning of 9/11?

Oh, I'm looking for "logical" answers here.

And for "evidence" supporting the official story, don't be a chicken shit. List your best supporting evidence. Of course, I know this is impossible for you. For it would require you to actually construct a coherent argument.
Maybe instead of letting debunking.com do your thinking for you, you should try getting all the facts and confirm them for yourself.

And my "questionable beliefs" are grounded solidly on credible evidence and sound logic, so question away. The link was to an article, not a guy. I'm glad you can google, but if you want to refute the article, try to avoid using logical fallacies (after all).

_{(Btw, "conjecturing" isn't an adjective. You can google that too! It's funny, you keep accusing me of "conjecturing", but you're too much of a chicken shit to demonstrate it!)}

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.

As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/


_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA

>>
^marbles:
He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.


Moreover, I would argue that 1984 was *not* about technology at all. Items like the Telescreen were just narrative devices.


>>
^ZappaDanMan:

Anyone else notice that in 1984, there is no mention of religion?


That's because the world of 1984 was modeled on contemporary Stalinist USSR, where religion was very much suppressed.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

-1 dumb for a person smart enough to know better.

Look bf, we have two angles on this issue, each of which have benefits and drawbacks.

You support an extreme version of capitalism that removes all barriers to trade, providing complete liberty to business people, but it comes at a cost. The downside of this kind of extreme capitalism is unemployment, low wages, income inequality, poverty, exploitation of labor, environmental destruction, small business hardships, etc. If you are going to embrace free markets, you need to disabuse yourself of the illusion that they are beneficial to all people, or even most people. They aren't. As capitalism grows more extreme in this country, you see all of the negative symptoms I've mentioned above manifest and intensify. You see the exact same thing in other countries where free market reforms are put in place - similarly against the will of the populace.

I support capitalism, but think there should be protections put in place to reduce capitalist related misery (unemployment, low wages, income inequality, poverty, exploitation of labor, pollution, small business harships). If I were to say that adding these protections would increase executive salaries and corporate bottom lines, I'd be just as dishonest as you claiming that removing these protections would increase economic liberty among the lower and middle classes. They don't.

I don't think you are dumb, but you sure do suffer from confirmation bias when it comes to your own belief system. Part of the problem is that you write off anything short of a completely free market as unrelated to your belief system. And, because there will never be a completely free market, there will always be room for you to avoid taking responsibility for negative effects of deregulation, privatization, austerity and other individual aspects of your belief system.

I could do the same. I could claim that there has never been a pure democracy and therefore you cannot judge existing partial democracies. I could tell you that the USSR diverged greatly from the principles of socialism and communism and therefore can't be used as negative examples of socialism. If I did either of these things, you'd object, and you'd be right to object, because results are ultimately more important intentions. It's in this spirit that I object not to your belief in free market principles, but to the pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows that you promise will accompany these principals - this post being a perfect example.

To answer your question, it is the government's duty to try and minimize the negative effects of its economic system. Planned parenthood fits well within this duty.

http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Oizo-Patrick122-USSR-Animation

http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Oizo-Patrick122-USSR-Animation

http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Oizo-Patrick122-USSR-Animation

>> ^MarineGunrock:

That shit looks sloppy, what with all the bouncing up and down.
This is much better. Less jarring. I might be biased, though.
I need to ask: why make them have both feet off of the ground at the same time? But I digress. When the USA starts having these kinds of parades through central DC (with fully armed and equipped soldiers and vehicles, then you can start calling out "fascism!" Until then, stfu about it.


It doesn't matter. This is simply a march, other militaries have other kinds of more or less stylized march. Basically, it's fad. Look here for the Chinese and then the USSR here. All communists, not the same march. The march doesn't matter. America is not (yet) a fascist state, but it has almost all the ingredients to become one. What will save America I think, is that she is too politically divided for fascism to become a mass movement without outside help (from something like - you guessed it - the army).

It's almost as if he were speaking anathema.

I have to give credit to Wallace for not pulling an O'Reilly.

Fromm said nothing out of malice, and he was very guarded with his definition of socialism.

And frankly, his summation of the USSR at the time was spot on. What did he say? A state-run capitalism?

My history teacher was quick to point out that the Japanese government was in talks with the Soviets, believing that Stalin would intermediate and determine conditions for a surrender to the US. "Unconditional surrender" to an adversary is a frightening prospect and hardly the norm, even for a nation on the brink of military defeat. The atomic bombing coincided with the declaration of war on Japan by the USSR, thus ending the hope of a negotiated end to the war. One can argue (and I understand that many historians do) that Russia's declaration of war was a larger factor in forcing a Japanese government to surrender without any preconditions regarding the ordering of their state, the dispensation of their territory, or the treatment of their soldiers. Is this argument right? I don't know; I wasn't there.

Certainly it is logically incompatible to hold that the Japanese government didn't care about civilian deaths and also that the atomic bomb caused the surrender. The only purpose of strategic bombing is to kill and demoralize large numbers of civilians. Why would a quarter of a million more deaths change the mind of such a callous regime? I'm entirely suspicious of anyone who now claims that targeting civilian population centers is "absolutely justified" in any context, though both sides felt that way at the time. 60 years later, every civilized country has abandoned strategic bombing because it's not only inhumane, but ineffective as well. At best its use in World War 2 is a gray area: we can credit those soldiers who carried it out for their bravery and sacrifice; we can credit their leaders for making the best choice they could with limited information.

Closer to the topic of the video, Truman's demand for unconditional surrender is unconscionable in my view. The Japanese were eager to talk terms. I don't know if they'd give us all we wanted, but we never even found out. He missed the chance to end the war a few months early and save half a million lives for the sake of pride and bluster. Not cool.

*Edit ^Gwiz said it much better than me... But I will keep my post up anyway... muahahaha...

* Disclaimer: This became a wall of text as I explained my reasoning. Also it is really really late so spelling might be off.
I hate to do this but winstonfield actually has one valid point even though his way of saying it was clumsy/not PC.
Reader's Digest: Wars are not winnable in modern times.

Full text:
Wars are not winnable in modern times as the populations are too big and know too much to simply accept a new ruler, even in backwater places like Afghanistan. Back in the day before proper nation states and democracy and all that a farmer could probably not care less who he paid his taxes to as long as he was left alone and had enough to feed himself and his family, and if he wasn't what could he do? The king was a king because God wanted it to be that way and he had knights and armies and the farmer did not. Today a 10 year old can mass produce home-made bombs that cost under 100 dollars a pop whilst a Military drops bombs that costs over 100 000 dollars a pop from 20 000 000 dollar aircrafts that land on 200 000 000 dollar Carriers. Today we know that wars cost money. We know that if you drag out a war long enough the populace of the invading force will most likely falter in their support, war weariness and all that (Vietnam anyone?). When the 100 000 US soldier dies by IED after 50 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq somehow I doubt that the support for the war will be there any more.

IMO if you want to win a war militarily you have to commit to total war and genocide and simply kill of all of the natives and move your own people in to settle the area. As long as one person remembers what it was like to be free from invaders they will fight. It is human nature. Just imagine if the USSR had invaded the US during the Cold War and conquered it militarily. Would the US citizens who survived the initial bombings just say, after a year or two or 8: "Oh, well. Guess I will stop fighting now and join the invading side. Seems like they have some things going for them..."? I doubt it.

Clarification:
Is this (Genocide and total war) something I advocate? No, but as Aldous Huxley said: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." IMO War serves no other purpose than to cull some of the human population. Nothing more and nothing less. It has served its purpose in the past, when countries could be conquered, but it has become obsolete in the modern world where populations are too large to control properly.

A couple of random thoughts:
To win a war today you have to break every single convention on warfare there is and use NBC weapons, or massive bombardments and just carpet bomb every inch of the country you are at war with, to annihilate the populace. If you are not prepared to do that you should not go to war as you cannot win, ever! (If you are prepared to do that I hope you never get into a position of power!)

Militaries are not for winning wars, they are for fighting them. When the politicians are bored of the fighting or it starts to affect their ratings negatively they sue for a peace treaty...

What is the definition of winning a war? Aren't wars supposed to be about conquest and getting new land and natural resources or perhaps vindication for a perceived insult to the crown or something? What would constitute a win in the Afghan and Iraqi wars? And is that a military goal or a political one?

Nice links! Would be interesting to see that fallout map correlated with cancer prevalence per capita....

>> ^alizarin:

1) They forgot Israel and South Africa in 1979... that would make it 2054.
2) This diagram is awesome.
Looks like the atmospheric vs underground count vs underwater counts are:
US 206/912/5
USSR 223/756/3
UK 21/24
France 50/160
China 22/26
India 0/6
South Africa/Isreal 1/0
Pakistan 0/7
North Korea 0/1
3) The fallout map is fun.
4) The Nevada and Kazakhstan need to surrender already

man, US really liked to nuke the west coast and USSR really hated that lake

1) They forgot Israel and South Africa in 1979... that would make it 2054.

2) This diagram is awesome.
Looks like the atmospheric vs underground count vs underwater counts are:
US 206/912/5
USSR 223/756/3
UK 21/24
France 50/160
China 22/26
India 0/6
South Africa/Isreal 1/0
Pakistan 0/7
North Korea 0/1

3) The fallout map is fun.

4) The Nevada and Kazakhstan need to surrender already