Alex Jones predicted the 9/11 attacks stating “Osama Bin Laden would be blamed for flying planes into buildings including the WTC”. He made this warning during the months of July and August of 2001
He is now stating for the fist time since 9/11, that all indicators suggest a massive terror attack is imminent, facilitated by corrupt rogue elements in western governments, possibly before October.
LISTEN TO THIS BROADCST, THEN DO SOMTHING!
WE CAN STOP THIS!
There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." – Mahatma Gandhi
Why don’t you, at the next available opportunity, encourage and ensure everyone votes in a tolerant liberal leader, so your country can remove this ‘bully boy’ stigma. USA under enlightened policy, could be a real agent of justice.
Do we need Alex Jones to lead the way? Nice idea, but i think not. If he predicted a 9/11 conspiracy, kudos. But he’s not a prophet. Not joining the army, and voting the right way is the best foundation
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Why don’t you, at the next available opportunity, encourage and ensure everyone votes in a tolerant liberal leader, so your country can remove this ‘bully boy’ stigma. USA under enlightened policy, could be a real agent of justice.
Do we need Alex Jones to lead the way? Nice idea, but i think not. If he predicted a 9/11 conspiracy, kudos. But he’s not a prophet. Not joining the army, and voting the right way is the best foundation[/quote]
True, true. What’s happening about that anyway? Seems like everone knows brothers will collude, and Bush is a dynasty, and they fixed that shit. This is the leader of the free world, right? With election fixing, and arming genocidal retaliation. Sorry man
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
True, true. What’s happening about that anyway? Seems like everone knows brothers will collude, and Bush is a dynasty, and they fixed that shit. This is the leader of the free world, right? With election fixing, and arming genocidal retaliation. Sorry man[/quote]
If you hadn’t already completely discredited yourself in previous posts, you have now.
What’s wrong with that? Did Bush fix the election or not? If he did, that’s far too corrupt for him to be leader of the most influential country in the world. If he didn’t, fine.
It IS, however, ‘common knowledge’ that the election WAS FIXED, just like it’s common knowledge that 'you don’t negotiate with terrorists. It’s propaganda all the same.
Fuck what you say anyway, neocon response in ALL these threads is just like ‘criticise the transgressor, try to undermine them by insults’ without any substantial insight.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Alex Jones’ Warning A CALL TO ACTION!
Alex Jones predicted the 9/11 attacks stating “Osama Bin Laden would be blamed for flying planes into buildings including the WTC”. He made this warning during the months of July and August of 2001
He is now stating for the fist time since 9/11, that all indicators suggest a massive terror attack is imminent, facilitated by corrupt rogue elements in western governments, possibly before October.
LISTEN TO THIS BROADCST, THEN DO SOMTHING!
WE CAN STOP THIS!
There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." – Mahatma Gandhi[/quote]
I protest! I am the resident psycho of the Politics Board!!
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
What’s wrong with that? Did Bush fix the election or not? If he did, that’s far too corrupt for him to be leader of the most influential country in the world. If he didn’t, fine. [/quote]
Then it is fine, because Bush did not fix the election.
Most certainly, it is not common knowledge - it is a myth that perpetuates itself in the fever swamps of kooky websites and blogs. To claim it is common knowledge is beyind stupid - some people definitely believe it, but it is nowhere near commonly accepted. That is ridiculous.
If you are not up to the task of fending off differing opinions, then stop posting. You post like you are trying to break some record - amazingly, however, despite the sheer volume of words, you seem to say little - but you want a bunch of nodding bobble-heads to cofirm your theories and you want to be shielded from anyone disagreeing with you.
Don’t like it? That is fine - don’t post.
Oh, and by the way, the ‘neocon’ slur gets tiresome and is not a substitute for an argument. I don’t consider myself to be a neoconservative anyway - but I doubt you would be up for dealing with the difference, since you prefer to duck and cover by labeling everyone who doesn’t buy your drivel as a ‘neocon’.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
He is now stating for the fist time since 9/11, that all indicators suggest a massive terror attack is imminent, facilitated by corrupt rogue elements in western governments, possibly before October.[/quote]
I like those super vague predictions. If anything at all remotely “terror-related” happends before october, he’ll take credit for having predicted it.
If, on the other hand, and I’ll bet that way myself, nothing special happens, he’ll take credit for having “prevented” it from happening.
This guy is simply milking his “want to believe” audience for all they’re worth. He does make his living from this stuff, after all.
That’s just what it is thunderbolt- i’m going for no award. I can take criticism.
It’s fine, i love plurality, until one opinion sets us in eternal war, and suppresses the different opinion ('have you actually tried negotiating? Historical proof suggests no, not fairly they haven’t) with irrelevant criticisms, and neglects to respond to sincere questions.
Neo-con is not a slur. Lefty is not a slur. They are among the most accuracte archetypes in the world. There may be blurring of the distinctions, but if, in this case, you believe ‘collateral damage’ (which is undeniably a euphemism) is justified, you’re with the conservatives/evil.
Rainjack readily admitted being a conservative. Politics have evolved. New, subtle conservatism, is neoconservatism. I didn’t make the word, but i’m using it correctly. I could say hegemonic drone, if you prefer.
Israel was put there by the rich and powerful (is this in doubt?)
War is in the interests of the rich and powerful (is this in doubt?). Conversely, terrorism is not. (it’s not in my interests either, just making a distinction)
The rich and powerful are neocon (is this in doubt?)
Do you think you are a liberal thunder? How so? Define liberal by any other criteria please. I believe that liberalism is based upon tolerance. If terrorism drives you to strike back wildly without thought for consequences, or alternate solutions, your rationality must have been exhausted, or you’ve gone to the ‘dark side’.
Terrorism and war are not so dissimilar. It’s kind of like weed and beer. One is taxed, yet more harmful. That’s fine. One is untaxed (and hardly illicit, or insidious), so in the US, in some states, you can get time for skunk similar to what you’d expect for robbery.
This is neocon. Rockefeller laws are neocon. Propaganda in mainstream press is neocon. The ‘free world’ is neocon.
Back in the day, i could have just beaten the shit out of Prince William, and i would be King. Now, the powerful retain power through subtle processes (not paranoid, this may just be invisible to you) which wear away at dissidents. Sort of like V for Vendetta ‘Governments should be afraid of their people, not the inverse’
How in the fuck do i say little? Each sentence has a meaning, and truth. Maybe you just don’t like the purpose. If so, you probably are neocon
The point of the thread is that some seditious guy was able to accurately predict the future 9/11 attack based on studying government subversion. This insinuates that it was a plot. Of course it may be wrong, Osama Bin Laden probably did do it, i’m sure he hates America. Michael Moore has made some dubious, compelling points, with evidence, on the subject.
I just said free elections were the way to solve half USA’s problems, as i suspected that most Americans don’t like Bush until it appears he’s ‘defending the nation’, when they rally round him. It was the same for Thatcher, and even Churchill. In the meantime, i suggest Bush can do whatever he wants. Since he has/had oil interests, it’s supicious. ‘Can’t you take alternate opinions?’
Now, did i say nothing? Maybe i said many things you can’t really defeat
It’s fine, i love plurality, until one opinion sets us in eternal war, and suppresses the different opinion ('have you actually tried negotiating? Historical proof suggests no, not fairly they haven’t) with irrelevant criticisms, and neglects to respond to sincere questions. [/quote]
There is nothing to negotiate. Negotiation presumes both sides have something the other side wants. Islamism doesn’t want anything other than domination. They routinely state this themselves.
This is nonsense - and you wonder why the grown ups around here don’t take you seriously.
‘Collateral damage’ is just that - collateral. It is not intended, and it is a nasty side effect of war, made worse by the fact that Islamists deliberately use civilians as part of their military tactic.
And your brainless label ‘conservative/evil’ makes us all wonder why we even bother responding to you. You say you are champion of pluralism - but what you really mean is that you want a pluralism that only includes variations of thinking that you like. ‘Neoconservatism’ - or what you label as such - happens to be a broader range of ideas including conservatives and liberals alike. The world gets complex quickly - your low-grade philosophy ignores too much in between your mindless stereotypes.
Rubbish. There are all kinds of conservatives, and you haven’t demonstrated the intelligence or experience to know the difference.
Moreover, this therapeutic cartoon you have created which states that all conservatives want unapologetic hegemony is faulty, nor are they drones.
It was put there by the UN - you like the UN as global decionmaker, right?
War is more complex than that, but you are too limited to have it explained to you. Your neoMarxist class-war explanation for every political act under the sun simply won’t do in a world that has rejected those explanations.
Terrorism is in the interests of wannabe conquerors, no more, no less. If they had a modern war machine - which they don’t, as it has been part of the culture’s failure to embrace modernity - they would use it in the exact same way as the Nazis. The Islamists don’t have it, so they opt for terrorism.
Further, Islamism is not the province of the poor and downtrodden. OBL is worth more than some small countries - but instead of using his wealth to bring his ‘people’ out of poverty, he instead wants to use his vast resources to reclaim the Caliphate of old.
Yep - it is in doubt. If we wanted money, oil, etc., why not just contract with Saddam Hussein and have him supply us with it? Think of the money saved.
The label ‘neocon’ continues to be abused in lieu of real debate on the issues.
Absolutely - under the old definition, I am absolutely a liberal.
Nonsense - liberal democracies are no birthright. They must be defended. To think otherwise is nothing more than national suicide. And look around - we put an amazing amount of thought into the consequences. Just because our collective conclusions don’t line up with your half-literate ideas doesn’t mean we have neglected to think through the consequences.
You have one category for ‘war’ - it is all bad. This can’t possibly be right.
This is a meaningless paragraph.
This, too, is meaningless.
And it is getting more banal by the paragraph.
No, I think you are a blithering amateur, to be frank, drunk on simplistic explanations and completely uninformed by experience. You type incessantly, but you provide little in the way of insight - mostly just noise.
Your purpose - whatever it is exactly - is naive.
Dubious but compelling points? Geez. Stop wasting my time. Learn to write.
Of course, I can, when alternate opinions are presented by someone intelligent and argued with clarity and common sense. Do you know of such a person?
Mostly nothing.
As for the second sentence, did you really just type that?
Conservatism 101- to conserve, keep the same support the status quo
That’s why they’re so resistant to change, and why conservatism will die out.
Wrong, the UN has ideas, and no power.
Israel was put there by the British. Then, ww2. Then, British left, after Irgun stuff (look it up) saying ‘fuck this place’ and gave it to USA. Who are rich and powerful. Get me?
erm… How has the world rejected marxist ideas? That might be the most ignorant thing ever spoken. Communism, yes. Marxism? Silly man
Terrorism isn’t a tool of conquerors. Terrorists are far too weak to conquer. They are by definition, weaker and subordinate in a society they wish to reject/change.
Agreed, Bin Laden is a fucker. I never once said ‘he’s a misunderstood, cool guy’. The Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordans, Tunisians et al have got shit on to some degree. fuck Bin Laden. He could buy a big jacuzzi and get his dick sucked all day every day if he wanted, with no problem. His struggle isn’t the same as PLO etc. This is a primary prejudice that negates all the things you later say.
How can you not accept that all terrorism is evil and vile, but not all islamic terrorists’ motivation is to establish a caliphate?
Hahahahahahahahahaha you know no history? This is what actually happened, all the while he was gassing Kuwaitis, until THE DAY he invaded Iran. There was US/Iraqi symbiosis until that day.
Now you have Turkey and Israel in your pocket, Israel will fight any nation who won’t sell you oil cheaply, and they will buy all the weapons your manufacturors can make! Sorted!
Your position could only called liberal in America- ‘there’s two puppets, i like his policy’s better’ ‘hey, there’s one guy holding both puppets!’- ‘Shut up, buy more beer you morons’
How can war be right? Is it something i’ll learn when i reach 22, or 33? Or is it just that you have been corrupted by age and vicious prejudices?
— Death of your family could solve all the world’s problems! Would you do it? (apply this argument to all the innocent casualties of war, then you’ll understand)
LEARN TO WRITE? Man, you are scraping the barrel! I have fiction, poetry and journalism published. I haven’t finished my undergraduate degree yet. Kindly don’t be ridiculous. I’m close (8 months) to being a qualified teacher of english to foreign students (far more taxing)
And saying my solutions are simplistic- hahaha they’re very complex, not black and white at all. Maybe you can’t even see them, they’re so esoteric.
Do you know the meaning of the two words in question? Yes, then how is their juxtaposition a problem? There is doubt of Moore’s opinions/ motives, but he ‘makes compelling points’ -ie he makes interesting points that demand further study
Funny you should say ‘banal’- have you read Billig’s stuff? You should.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Conservatism 101- to conserve, keep the same support the status quo
That’s why they’re so resistant to change, and why conservatism will die out. [/quote]
Nope - Western conservatism is trying to conserve Western liberalism. While that sounds semantic, it really is not. If you’re definition was right, then the people who want to keep Europe’s quasi-socialist welfare state in place are conservatives. That is likely not a good way of explaining it. There must be something more.
Further, trying to reform the Middle East by instigating democracy there - whether you are for it or against it - cannot possibly be described as supporting the status quo.
You can’t even work within your own labels, Danny.
And your notion on change is quite silly - there are as many ways to mess something up as to improve it. Change is not a panacea, nor is progress linear.
The UN recognized Israel as a legitimate state - that is the point. That ends the discussion on Israel’s legitimacy. Only the Arab states put up resistance, and not because ‘rich people’ had taken over a valuable piece of property - they simply didn’t want Jews in their space.
And, why do you not chastise Israel’s enemies for not being ‘tolerant’? You should, since you are married to the concept as tolerance-is-ultimate-justice, but you won’t, because you only apply that virtue when it is convenient.
Marx predicted the non-rich would come to hate and envy the rich and that capitalism would stunt the growth of technology - how are those theories working out?
Plus, there really is no way of separating Communism and Marxism - since Marxism relies on rigidity of thought and ideology to work, Marxism can’t be implemented except from the top-down as a totalitarian regime, and well, let’s face it - people just don’t care for that approach. Liberals are nuts that way, liking freedom and all that business.
By the way, liberals and Marxists, just so you know, have about zilch in common, so decide which camp you are in.
Yes, and that is what I said - I said wannabe conquerors. Had the Muslim nations not condemned themselves to backwater cultures, they might have the war machine available to achieve their ends.
And, read your post again - the terrorists want to change the societies they live in? But, I thought change was inevitable and good and conserving was never any good?
Huh? I accept that terrorism is vile and evil, and I accept that the terrorists’ motivation is to re-establish the Caliphate or at the minumium, establish Sharia law locally through force.
Incoherent writing on your point, again.
You sidestep the point. Fast forward to now - if cheap oil is all we wanted and human rights be damned, why not just ignore the post-Gulf War embargo and contract with Saddam for his cheap oil brought out of the ground by his state run corporation? Wouldn’t that be easier, to just establish Saddam as a client state a decade after the Gulf War? For someone truly interested in dominance over the region, that would be the best and cheapest solution.
That would have been the obvious move, were the US all the nasty things you say it is. But that isn’t what happened. Can you figure an alternative explanation? Do tell.
Pure fiction. You have embarrassed yourself. What nation are we trying to fight because they won’t sell oil cheaply?
Canada is our largest oil trading partner - are we fighting them? Prices of oil are established on the international market. No matter where we ge the oil, the price is going to be roughly as expensive or cheap. And, assuming you pay attention to such things, oil is very expensive everyhwere - are we going to have Israel fight Exxon for us, because it is still very expensive to buy from an American company?
And as above, if we wanted all this cheap oil, couldn’t we have just turned Saddam into a client state?
You can’t be taken seriously.
This is incoherent - but that is to be expected at this point.
Then what was the unconditional defeat of the Axis powers in WWII? A mistake?
War isn’t going anywhere - to think so is to be naive about human nature. Further, the liberties you enjoy in the West were carved out of struggle against those that weren’t exactly keen on allowing it.
You want a world where no one ever wants to fight, and therefore war would be an automatic abomination. No such place exists, so stop pretending as though it does.
Well, that information is tragic in its own right, but supposing it is true, stop wasting my time with rambling babble which has become your trademark. You have complete paragraphs that are so incoherent that they are beyond redemption.
Yeah, or not.
Dubious: 1 : giving rise to uncertainty: as (a) of doubtful promise or outcome (b) questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality
As a general rule, if something is ‘questionable’ or ‘suspect’ or ‘doubtful in promise’, I don’t think it rises to the level of ‘compelling’ - rather I would be ‘skeptical’.
Since Moore has a reputation of presenting poorly constructed arguments based on dubious information, there is little that is compelling. More importantly, Moore’s dimwitted theories have been picked clean by his critics, and when they have requested a public debate on the issues to out him as a fraud (see Christopher Hitchens as an example), Moore - ever the coward - slinks away from the challenge.
I could tell you about Europe’s quasi-socialist welfare state. I didn’t read it in a book. That isn’t the thing conservatives are trying to protect- do you really not know of the spectrum from the left to the right? The mountain and all that? come on.
I guess we disagree as you seem to define democracy as accord with the superpower of your origin. Real democracy, wouldn’t look at all like humiliation and unconditional surrender to some foreign project.
If you feel my ‘marxist’ interpretation of events is false, tell me this- How did the jews first get the land?
In brief- The Ottoman Empire was archaic. People farmed common land. They didn’t want to register the land in anyone’s name, as they’d be liable for the tax bill. (Shit, i don’t want my name on the NTL bill in my house)
So they registered the land with rich people- not of the people. Bourgeois, sort of. Then, 1900 or so, and after, rich Jews bought the land. The general population were fucked.
I think Marx identified the problem better than any other. Perfect analysis. But his solution is something i don’t follow. It’s flawed, harsh.
Some liberals advocate complete freedom, death or life, to the individual, apathy, rather than altruism. I don’t like this.
I didn’t say change was inevitable, like predetermined or something. It is preferable. It is evolution.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there was no arab unity until western bombs began falling regularly. That unity is debatable even now. I think you’re mistaken.
War may never leave human nature, that is understandable. But it’s never right. People unrelated always die. This isn’t a ‘oh well, collateral damage, sigh’ moment. It’s not fair, not right, not ethical.
Civilain-killers have unclean hands. If you kill 250,000 to save 6 million, i can understand. If you kill a force bent on world domination and murder, i can undertsand. But you repeatedly ignore that in this case, the solution is worse than the crime.
This is plainly not ww2. My mum studied a lot of ww2, and i listened. Let’s not abuse analogies.
(No blade) I’ve had to fight before, for myself, with friends and family, for self-preservation. If i killed, i would automatically be subject to the law. It’s a paradox. I have no authority to defend myself from grievous attack with a fatal blow, but if i want to fight on behalf of my country, that’s different. I can kill lots of foreigners, right, as long as they differ from my culture, right?
The DEATHS of terrorists is perhaps neccessary to stop this paralysing conflict (if arrest doesn’t work). The MURDER of shitloads of people who live in Beirut isn’t. It’s because some people take no issue with these deaths, that i write.
We have evolved sophisticated methods to catch these people. A moment of key cultural pride was the Iranian hostage crisis at the Embassy. Those soldiers going in, they were brave. They did a good job (even then, some civilians died). They didn’t fire a rocket at the embassy, and surrounding buildings too.
That was a little while ago too, maybe IDF special forces should get some play.
I’m no disciple of Michael Moore’s. Don’t get confused
Your reply is pretty schizophrenic and disjointed, but here goes:
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I could tell you about Europe’s quasi-socialist welfare state. I didn’t read it in a book. That isn’t the thing conservatives are trying to protect- do you really not know of the spectrum from the left to the right? The mountain and all that? come on. [/quote]
No, that was entirely my point - being conservative must mean something other than preserving the status quo, else you would have to call welfare state supporters conservatives, which is not correct.
That was entirely the point I was making - they aren’t conservatives, and your limited label is refuted by the fact that we both know welfare state supporters aren’t conservatives. Got it?
I hope so - this is getting tiresome.
Well, this aside, as I stated in the previous post, trying to create democracy is not preserving the status quo. Notice how you try and change the subject to a criticism of the project. That wasn’t my point, as I stated - I merely brought it up to refute your lame definition of ‘conservative’.
[quote]In brief- The Ottoman Empire was archaic. People farmed common land. They didn’t want to register the land in anyone’s name, as they’d be liable for the tax bill. (Shit, i don’t want my name on the NTL bill in my house)
So they registered the land with rich people- not of the people. Bourgeois, sort of. Then, 1900 or so, and after, rich Jews bought the land. The general population were fucked. [/quote]
Let’s see a source for this version of this sordid little tale.
Interestingly, this is further proof that the Jews that moved back into the area did not do so at the point of a gun. Buying up land was peaceful and gradual and legitimate. And, strangely, for a 300 year period of Jews buying up land, the Arab population stayed roughly the same, and then between the 1850s and 1947, the Arab population in this region quadrupled.
So did the Jewish presence - inhabited through purchasing tracts of land - really hurt the Arab population? The level of progress brought by the Jews to the area did more for the Arabs than your little fantasy suggests.
There is little Arab unity now, but it is largely pointless, even if there is unity.
Of course it isn’t fair, and no one applauds collateral damage. But pretending it is unethical to wage war solely because civilians get hurt is erroneous. Under that definition, no war ever could be ethical, which defies every line of thinking about war since the beginning of Western civilization.
Well, you clearly don’t have the capacity to understand the difference. Those that intentionally target civilian targets have unclean hands, those that try to avoid civilian casualties do not. Moreover, combatting Islamists is the very definition trying to kill a force bent on world domination and murder, so by your own standard, the war on terror passes your test.
Well, this couldn’t be WW2, and I am not currently discussing the issue with your mum. But the analogy holds - fascist ideology wanting domination.
You’re not helping yourself by trafficking in straw men while trying to be snide. That is a silly proposition, one that is done simply so you can have a convenient scapegoat. As I said before, you can’t be taken seriously. No one supports that cartoonish view you offered. Enough.
Well, you write while ignoring that Hezbollah wants to instigate a fight and they want to put civilians in the way while doing so. As long as you ignore this, your writing means zilch. No one here is insensitive to the fact that civilians in Beirut will be hurt - they are just wise enough to understand the circumstances as they are.
Hezbollah will always insure that civilians get put into harm’s way after provoking an attack. Condemn them, not the respondent that drops flyers to warn civilians of impending attacks.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Rainjack readily admitted being a conservative. Politics have evolved. New, subtle conservatism, is neoconservatism. I didn’t make the word, but i’m using it correctly. I could say hegemonic drone, if you prefer.
[/quote]
Conservatism is a totally different horse than neoconservatism.
If I am not mistaken - the neo-conservatives go back to the late 50’s or early 60’s.
You used the term wrong. Do some more reading.
But to agree with thunder - you have called me a cunt, accused my mother of have relations with your dog, and a whole laundry list of other slurs in lieu of engaging in honest debate.
Your use of slurs and hate-speech is typical of one that refuses to listen to anyone’s offerings but his own - and those that agree with him.
Maybe you should take the advice given to children - be seen and not heard - until you can learn to engage properly.
You could use that time to read up on the neo-conservative movement in the U.S.
I haven’t time enough to criticise you rainjack. I tried engaging intelligently, but you see no reason and condescend, until i reveal about your mother. You’re a sweaty fossil.
Thunder- you’ve refused again to accept my ideas, agreeing with their legitimacy, then drawing a zany alternative conclusion in the next sentence- like ‘Jews moving there quadrupled the population’- Did the Jews force arabs to make sweet, sweet love? Don’t be ridiculous. Neoconservatism, etc- that’s been dealth with for those who know, its evolved conservatism.
I’m glad no-one wrote ‘bang’, that always really sharply and wittily undermines anything i say (haha)
No point speaking to conservative (by European standards) neocolonial zealots
One last thing- RAINJACK, YOU NEVER EVER SAY ANYTHING. ONCE AGAIN, YOU SAID NOTHING. JUST TRIED TO UNDERMINE WHATEVER IT IS I’M SAYING AT THE TIME, WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF YOUR OWN
