liberty student:The Phoenix Memo, no one is saying that the FBI Agent thought he knew about 9/11 (a typical strawman argument). He reported activity by Al Qaeda, with airplanes to his superiors, and they have no record of where his memo went.
And this is evidence of anything other than Incompetence, how exactly?
liberty student:The Rowley Memo, I gave to you via Time. Some summary article on testimony about her sense of humour and whether there would be retaliation doesn't do justice to her claims to Mueller.
No it clearly shows she accuses the FBI of covering it's ass for being incompetent and she clearly states that the reason for this is the structure and design of the FBI bureaucracy.
liberty student:And who cares if Bush was satisfied? He has to be the biggest idiot in history. That doesn't change the fact that he was briefed about Bin Laden attacking by air, and he did NOTHING about it. Nothing.
Is this included in the memo or not?
"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
Where in the memo does it say 19 hijackers are going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon on 911?
liberty student:I forget where I read it, but Condi Rice was told that Al Qaeda should be their #1 priority, and they did NOTHING about it. If you watch her testimony on YouTube, she's completely unconvincing trying to make excuses for how they misinterpreted the PDB.
Again where is your source and how is this anything but an example of incompetence? Again no evidence of conspiracy.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech:That interview was a joke. Goyette just makes accusations that "secret evidence" has not been released with nothing to support this claim.
You obviously didnt listen to the interview. You missed the biggest lie he exposed. Man, you're a sad case. Lemme guess, you googled up a debunker retort to the interview? Do you actually do any scholarship on this topic yourself?
Poptech:It is your problem because you still have not support your conspiracy claims with any sources. What sentence (s) in her deposition support a conspiracy?
We can play this game all day. Read the deposition, or watch the videos. I've given you primary sources. Go to work. I don't care if you believe me or not. But you can't legitimately say I'm not credible, if you haven't looked at the evidence. That is the burden of proof.
Poptech:You have not been posting anything until your last post and still have yet to post a single sentence from the deposition.
I'll make it very clear to you. I am not going to go through her deposition to source for you. You have the PDF, if you need the video links, I will provide them. If it makes it easier for you, you can probably avoid the cross examinations by Fein. They were related more to the case she was giving the deposition for, rather than the information she had re: whistleblowing.
Poptech:it clearly shows she accuses the FBI of covering it's ass for being incompetent and she clearly states that the reason for this is the structure and design of the FBI bureaucracy.
When did you read the Rowley memo?
Poptech:And this is evidence of anything other than Incompetence, how exactly?
Is the US government incompetent?
liberty student:You obviously didnt listen to the interview. You missed the biggest lie he exposed.
Please stop lying, I just listened to the interview, he didn't expose any "lie" but did expose his own ignorance.
Officials Identify Remains of Two Hijackers Through DNA (The New York Times)Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified (BBC)Remains of two Sept. 11 hijackers identified via DNA (USA Today)Remains Of 9 Sept. 11 Hijackers Held (CBS News)
liberty student:We can play this game all day. Read the deposition, or watch the videos. I've given you primary sources. Go to work. I don't care if you believe me or not. But you can't legitimately say I'm not credible, if you haven't looked at the evidence. That is the burden of proof.
Go to work doing what? The word "conspiracy" does not show up in the deposition. What sentence am I looking for? If you cannot back up your claims, don't make them.
Yes she clearly makes a case for incompetence in government. I found nothing supporting any "conspiracy" and you refuse to provide evidence of this, thus your claim is debunked.
Poptech: liberty student:You obviously didnt listen to the interview. You missed the biggest lie he exposed. Please stop lying, I just listened to the interview, he didn't expose any "lie" but did expose his own ignorance.
That's pretty amazing. In less than an hour, you dug up sources, you replied to me multiple times, you listened to a 23 minute interview and you read a 5800+ word memo.
What are you going to do for an encore? Cure AIDs?
All you do is google up other people's research and then try to present it as your own. People like me, who have an interest in foreign policy and history, spend the 5 hours to listen to the most important whistleblower testimony in the last decade because being informed can't be done with bullet points or web searches.
You've displayed no interest in consulting sources to get to facts. You're no different than the "inside job" fanatics.
I'm done wasting my time with you.
liberty student:That's pretty amazing. In less than an hour, you dug up sources, you replied to me multiple times, you listened to a 23 minute interview and you read a 5800+ word memo.
I dug up sources while listening to the interview (all of it). I had read the memo a while ago.
"Whistleblowing" does not mean "conspiracy". If you cannot provide a single sentence supporting any conspiratorial claims I am not wasting 5 hours listening to the deposition.
All I do is provide sources! I provided the transcript of the deposition not you.The word "conspiracy" appears ZERO times!
Unlike you I actually look to see if claims can be substantiated and you have yet to substantiate ONE claim of conspiracy.
liberty student:All you do is google up other people's research and then try to present it as your own
Nope I always do my own research.
liberty student:I'm done wasting my time with you.
Of course conspiracy theorists can never back up their nonsense. They have no choice but to give up.
Poptech: I had read the memo a while ago.
When?
Poptech:"Whistleblowing" does not mean "conspiracy".
Strawman. I never said it did.
Poptech:If you cannot provide a single sentence supporting any conspiratorial claims I am not wasting 5 hours listening to the deposition.
I don't care.
Poptech:All I do is provide sources!
All you do is google for sources.
Poptech:you have yet to substantiate ONE claim of conspiracy
I asked you to source my claims. You have not done so. Is this another strawman?
But do tell me, you've read the Rowley Memo when?
liberty student:When?
In 2007 I read the Time Magazine piece.
liberty student:Strawman. I never said it did.
I never said you did, I said that.
liberty student:All you do is google for sources
Not exactly, it is more involved than that. I still provide sources.
liberty student:I asked you to source my claims. You have not done so. Is this another strawman?
You refuse to answer questions so lets settle this point...
Do you or do you not support any conspiracy charges against the U.S. government about 911?
Poptech:Nope I always do my own research.
Good, then you should have no problem going through Edmonds' deposition.
Btw, is the US government incompetent or not?
liberty student:Good, then you should have no problem going through Edmonds' deposition.
For what? Tell me what I am looking for and I will search for it.
liberty student:Btw, is the US government incompetent or not?
Quite often yes.
Poptech: liberty student:I asked you to source my claims. You have not done so. Is this another strawman? You refuse to answer questions so lets settle this point... Do you or do you not support any conspiracy charges against the U.S. government about 911?
Let's do this again. You made claims about statements from me. Do sources for them exist or not, and are they in this thread? Yes or no.
And while we're at it, I want to clarify that you accept that the US government is incompetent and suffers from corruption, is that correct?
liberty student:Let's do this again. You made claims about statements from me. Do sources for them exist or not, and are they in this thread? Yes or no.
Yes
"...she exposed a massive conspiracy of treason within the US government, involving the Congress and the Executive. "
liberty student:The sad thing is, I haven't even seen a challenge to Eric Margolis, who is a LRC contributor, and a world reknowned foreign policy expert, who specializes on things related to Afghanistan and Kashmir.
can you expand on this for me LS ?
I hadnt heard of Margolis before so i peeked on LewRockwell.com
Eric Margolis:Interestingly, many Americans – one poll says 33% – believe their government is covering up facts about the September 11 attacks, or was even somehow even involved in them, though there is no evidence of this to date. -- Five Years Later, September 12, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis49.html
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:can you expand on this for me LS ?
I wish I could but I am not sure what you are asking me about.
Is the quote from Margolis?
Poptech: liberty student:Let's do this again. You made claims about statements from me. Do sources for them exist or not, and are they in this thread? Yes or no. Yes "...she exposed a massive conspiracy of treason within the US government, involving the Congress and the Executive. "
Yes, I stand by that.
You need to read or watch the deposition. She doesn't talk about 9/11 (iirc) in the deposition, I think I already made that clear. My original sourcing of her was her radio interview. I think you are the one who sourced the deposition. I merely referenced her deposition and the gag orders, 9/11 commission testimony to emphasize that she is not just a menial translator, or that translators are anything less than front line (I know they aren't sexy characters in the spy novels) intelligence operators.
And of course to make the case for corrupt (and treasonous) government.
If you were someone who did original research, you would already know this.
OT, are you the same Poptech from HotAir?
@Poptech, do you also believe there is corruption in the US government?
yes, sorry , i wrote the wrong attribution. i'll edit it.
liberty student:It's pretty consistently what AIPAC wants them to do.
LOL even a hundred years ago? Did Roosevelt go to war to establish the State of Israel? If you think that AIPAC has more clout than "oil-poor" countries like Saudi Arabia, then you need a serious reality check. Or listen to someone else other than Chomsky.
First of all, the Farm Lobby is far more powerful than the "Israel Lobby." When was the last time you saw a Congressman espousing a position that was deemed by the farm lobby to be hostile to farm interests? But Congressmen and State Department officials take positions hostile to Israel and contradicting the opinions of the "Israel Lobby" all the time. The State Department routinely pressures Israel to agree to adopt policies Israeli citizens oppose. The media are overflowing with articles demonizing the "Israel Lobby" and of course also Israel itself. Google reports more than two million web sites about the "Israel Lobby," most of them hostile to Israel, while Yahoo lists more than 10 million. If the Israel Lobby is supposed by its enemies to be suppressing anti-Israel criticism, it is doing a god-awful job of it. Second, while it would be an exaggeration to say there is no Israel Lobby at all, it would only be a small exaggeration. The main organization of the "Israel Lobby" is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. It is indeed a registered lobby group. Its activities are all out in the open and its rather pathetic budget publicly scrutinized. There are of course also other pro-Israel groups who attempt to persuade Congress to support Israel, ranging from numerous Christian groups to the Zionist Organization of America to the AFL-CIO. That is the whole "Israel Lobby." Third, the "Israel Lobby," to the extent that it even really exists, is but one of thousands of lobby groups, who promote thousands of different causes in competition with one another. Lobbying is a legitimate, indeed a necessary and beneficial, public activity in democracies. Not only do those whining about the power of the "Israel Lobby" have nothing to say about the sugar lobby and the cotton lobby, but they also have nothing to say about the countless anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups who lobby on behalf of Arab aggression against Israel, and sometimes on behalf of Islamofascism. Note how silent the media are about the Anti-Israel Lobby. (more)
First of all, the Farm Lobby is far more powerful than the "Israel Lobby." When was the last time you saw a Congressman espousing a position that was deemed by the farm lobby to be hostile to farm interests? But Congressmen and State Department officials take positions hostile to Israel and contradicting the opinions of the "Israel Lobby" all the time. The State Department routinely pressures Israel to agree to adopt policies Israeli citizens oppose. The media are overflowing with articles demonizing the "Israel Lobby" and of course also Israel itself. Google reports more than two million web sites about the "Israel Lobby," most of them hostile to Israel, while Yahoo lists more than 10 million. If the Israel Lobby is supposed by its enemies to be suppressing anti-Israel criticism, it is doing a god-awful job of it.
Second, while it would be an exaggeration to say there is no Israel Lobby at all, it would only be a small exaggeration. The main organization of the "Israel Lobby" is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. It is indeed a registered lobby group. Its activities are all out in the open and its rather pathetic budget publicly scrutinized. There are of course also other pro-Israel groups who attempt to persuade Congress to support Israel, ranging from numerous Christian groups to the Zionist Organization of America to the AFL-CIO. That is the whole "Israel Lobby."
Third, the "Israel Lobby," to the extent that it even really exists, is but one of thousands of lobby groups, who promote thousands of different causes in competition with one another. Lobbying is a legitimate, indeed a necessary and beneficial, public activity in democracies. Not only do those whining about the power of the "Israel Lobby" have nothing to say about the sugar lobby and the cotton lobby, but they also have nothing to say about the countless anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups who lobby on behalf of Arab aggression against Israel, and sometimes on behalf of Islamofascism. Note how silent the media are about the Anti-Israel Lobby. (more)
--------
In the original essay, it may remembered, the authors leveled the sensational charge that Israel’s supporters in the United States, when not manipulating American foreign policy to Israel’s advantage and wrenching the country into the Iraq war, posed a terrible threat to American democracy. Lurking behind every curtain, the “Israel Lobby“ was guilty not only of “silencing skeptics” – presumably like Mearsheimer and Walt – but also of stifling debate about Israel in Congress and thereby subverting the “entire process of democratic deliberation.” Truly, this was a force to be reckoned with. So, one can’t help but wonder: How is it that this all-effecting lobby, with infinite powers of intimidation at its disposal, has nonetheless failed to prevent the publication of a nearly 500-page tome that purports to expose its sinister doings? To those with a less conspiratorial cast of mind than the authors, the answer seems fairly obvious. There is not now nor has there ever been an omnipotent “Israel Lobby.” Of course, there are pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And yes, these groups do influence American foreign policy. In this respect, they are no different than the Saudi lobby, which has bent American policy to the benefit of a famously corrupt and terrorism-sponsoring monarchy, though neither Mearsheimer nor Walt shows any interest in the subject. What AIPAC demonstrably is not is an author and arbitrator of American foreign policy. Indeed, that would be an impossible role to play for an organization whose supporters run the ideological gamut from Howard Dean and Barack Obama to John Bolton and Dick Cheney. To suggest that AIPAC sets foreign policy is thus no more plausible than the authors’ initial claim, eerily reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism and noticeably stricken from their new book, that AIPAC is a “de facto agent for a foreign government.” To appreciate how Mearsheimer and Walt conceived their argument in The Israel Lobby, and to get a sense of their scholarly standards, consider this: Their text contains no interviews with members of the “Israel Lobby,” the government, or the national media that the lobby is alleged to have in its pocket. Instead, it draws for its substance on, among other secondary sources, the polemics of Norman Finkelstein, Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, and Tony Judt’s essay in the Nation. An undergraduate history major would properly be flunked for submitting such a hack job. It says nothing good about the worlds of publishing and academia that Mearsheimer and Walt got a book contract instead.(more) On the other hand: The Islamist Lobby in the House
In the original essay, it may remembered, the authors leveled the sensational charge that Israel’s supporters in the United States, when not manipulating American foreign policy to Israel’s advantage and wrenching the country into the Iraq war, posed a terrible threat to American democracy. Lurking behind every curtain, the “Israel Lobby“ was guilty not only of “silencing skeptics” – presumably like Mearsheimer and Walt – but also of stifling debate about Israel in Congress and thereby subverting the “entire process of democratic deliberation.” Truly, this was a force to be reckoned with.
So, one can’t help but wonder: How is it that this all-effecting lobby, with infinite powers of intimidation at its disposal, has nonetheless failed to prevent the publication of a nearly 500-page tome that purports to expose its sinister doings? To those with a less conspiratorial cast of mind than the authors, the answer seems fairly obvious. There is not now nor has there ever been an omnipotent “Israel Lobby.” Of course, there are pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And yes, these groups do influence American foreign policy. In this respect, they are no different than the Saudi lobby, which has bent American policy to the benefit of a famously corrupt and terrorism-sponsoring monarchy, though neither Mearsheimer nor Walt shows any interest in the subject.
What AIPAC demonstrably is not is an author and arbitrator of American foreign policy. Indeed, that would be an impossible role to play for an organization whose supporters run the ideological gamut from Howard Dean and Barack Obama to John Bolton and Dick Cheney. To suggest that AIPAC sets foreign policy is thus no more plausible than the authors’ initial claim, eerily reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism and noticeably stricken from their new book, that AIPAC is a “de facto agent for a foreign government.”
To appreciate how Mearsheimer and Walt conceived their argument in The Israel Lobby, and to get a sense of their scholarly standards, consider this: Their text contains no interviews with members of the “Israel Lobby,” the government, or the national media that the lobby is alleged to have in its pocket. Instead, it draws for its substance on, among other secondary sources, the polemics of Norman Finkelstein, Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, and Tony Judt’s essay in the Nation. An undergraduate history major would properly be flunked for submitting such a hack job. It says nothing good about the worlds of publishing and academia that Mearsheimer and Walt got a book contract instead.(more)
On the other hand:
The Islamist Lobby in the House
We obtained a letter sent on July 24 by seven House Democrats to Attorney General Holder on behalf of 9 radical Islamic front groups relaying the complaints of the groups about law enforcement techniques in terrorist cases, including the use of informants.
The Congressmen acted as virtual lobbyists for these militant groups, asking that the AG stop employing tried and proven counter-terrorist techniques and also echoed information that was blatantly false claiming the FBI was engaged in racial profiling. The Congressmen asked that the AG meet with these groups, which are almost all derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood.
This phenomenon is part of the Grand Deception, when radical Islam wittingly and unwittingly convinces the American government and the media that radical Islamists have no other agenda than to play pluralist politics when the real (and demonstrably unconcealed goal) is to infiltrate the American government and media and ultimately take over. The documents released from the Holy Land Foundation trial were shockingly clear: the Muslim Brotherhood in this country secretly aspires to a “civilizational-jihadist process” in which the Islamist groups will infiltrate the institutions of power and American society. No one can argue with hundreds of such documents that were released at the HLF trial. They were shocking and had never been seen before.
More on Investigative Project on Terrorism
Iran's Lobby in the US
Saudi lobby
Arab Lobby Network
The roots of the Arab lobby in America can be traced back to 1951, when King Saud of Saudi Arabia asked U.S. diplomats to finance a pro-Arab lobby to serve as a counterweight to the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (later renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC).While the pace of the Arab lobby’s growth was initially slow, there were nonetheless signs of increased assertiveness. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, for example, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) set up a fund to present the Arab perspective on the conflict. In May 1970, ARAMCO representatives warned Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that American military sales to Israel would harm U.S.-Arab relations and jeopardize American oil supplies.Driven by oil revenues, the Arab lobby’s leverage in affecting American policy was demonstrated in early 1973 when Mobil published a pro-Arab advertorial in The New York Times. In July of that year, the chairman of Standard Oil of California (now called Chevron) distributed a letter asking the company’s 40,000 employees and 262,000 stockholders to pressure their elected representatives to support “the aspirations of the Arab people.” In a similar spirit, the chairman of Texaco urged the U.S. to reassess its Middle East policy.
Yes, very powerful Zionists indeed!
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
liberty student:The problem with centuries old conflicts, is that it presumes there is a multi-generational continuity that supercedes individual human action.
What's that supposed to mean? I was just saying that although US is involved in many things, it doesn't mean that it has a hand in every single conflict that's going on in the world. Especially if they have been going on since before US even appeared on the map.
Natalie, I knew the AIPAC comment would set you off. You're that predictable.
Natalie:LOL even a hundred years ago? Did Roosevelt go to war to establish the State of Israel?
You asked if the US has a foreign policy. I presumed this to mean now.
Natalie:If you think that AIPAC has more clout than "oil-poor" countries like Saudi Arabia, then you need a serious reality check.
AIPAC is notorious as the most powerful lobby in Washington, I'm quite surprised you aren't aware of that.
Natalie:Or listen to someone else other than Chomsky.
I don't listen to Chomsky at all. You'll have to do better than insinuating I have a poor source for information.
The rest of your post is some typical rant against Muslims or Arab countries. It's amazing to see a libertarian constantly posting collectivist arguments.
Natalie:What's that supposed to mean?
I think you understood exactly what I meant. Your theory of multi-generational conflicts isn't consistent with methodological individualism.
Natalie:I was just saying that although US is involved in many things, it doesn't mean that it has a hand in every single conflict that's going on in the world.
I don't believe anyone stated that. So I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to make that point.
Natalie:Especially if they have been going on since before US even appeared on the map.
Back to the original point. Such as?
nirgrahamUK: yes, sorry , i wrote the wrong attribution. i'll edit it.
I'm still not sure what your actual question or concern is. Could you spell it out for me please?
liberty student:You're on LvMI of your own free will. If you don't like LvMI proclamations, go somewhere else. It's irrational for you to be here if you oppose libertarianism and Rothbardianism. You admit, LvMI is not the center of the Austrian universe. So find a new orbit if LvMI's Rothbardianism, anarchism and libertarianism are so distasteful to you.
As far as I'm aware, this was the Ludwig von Mises Institute not the Murray Rothbard Institute. The fact is, I find a lot of value in the economics of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, I disagree thoroughly with the economics and philosophy of Murray Rothbard. Now, I just checked what the LvMI is about and I saw the name of Ludwig von Mises mentioned numerous times and only saw that of Murray Rothbard just once.
So, until the LvMI makes it explicit that they're not following the teachings of Mises but Rothbard, I've got as much of a reason to be here as you.
You see, I've seen very little reason that you have any interest in the truth and every interest in advancing your own dogma.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:As far as I'm aware, this was the Ludwig von Mises Institute not the Murray Rothbard Institute.
Non sequitur. It could be called the Peanut Butter and Jam Institute, and still serve pastrami on rye at the conferences.
GilesStratton:So, until the LvMI makes it explicit that they're not following the teachings of Mises but Rothbard, I've got as much of a reason to be here as you.
They have made it explicit that they are "Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School". Make sure you accept that when you feel you have a reason to be here.
GilesStratton:You see, I've seen very little reason that you have any interest in the truth and every interest in advancing your own dogma.
Thankfully, humanity at large, and this community in particular, are not constrained by the limits of your vision.
liberty student:Non sequitur. It could be called the Peanut Butter and Jam Institute, and still serve pastrami on rye at the conferences.
Hey--someone needs to add a little levity.
nirgrahamUK: liberty student:The sad thing is, I haven't even seen a challenge to Eric Margolis, who is a LRC contributor, and a world reknowned foreign policy expert, who specializes on things related to Afghanistan and Kashmir. can you expand on this for me LS ? I hadnt heard of Margolis before so i peeked on LewRockwell.com Eric Margolis:Interestingly, many Americans – one poll says 33% – believe their government is covering up facts about the September 11 attacks, or was even somehow even involved in them, though there is no evidence of this to date. -- Five Years Later, September 12, 2006 http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis49.html
if eric margolis is supposed to have a non-rebuffed position on conspiracy, it is not stated in his Five Years Later article, rather the opposite.if eric margolis is supposed to have a thorough position on some other specific matter, what is it ? is it relevant to the talk of conspiracies
Natalie: The Islamist Lobby in the House
wouldn't that be something. while many U.S. citizens are glorifying Obama and the socialist/communist mentality even as it seemed the Soviet Union fell and it should be all over by now. here comes Islam setting up shop while they are supposedly only terrorists out in the caves, they are also building a new foundation through the politics of the U.S. Then in 30 years or so (wild guess) a new president (if that's still even meaningful by then) is not talking about "We can change" but "Sharia Law". it's all so goofy but plausible.
liberty student:You can choose to believe it is government incompetence, but you fall into the same trap as Natalie. If the government is too corrupt or incompetent to stop 9/1, then how can it have competently investigated 9/11, and how competent can its account of 9/11 be?
When did I say that I trust the government report 100%? That's not the same as thinking it's all a lie or that someone in the government had planned 9/11 - I think it's proven beyond doubt that Ramzi Yousef and KSM were the masterminds (interestingly enough, the official investigation mostly blames KSM).
nirgrahamUK:if eric margolis is supposed to have a non-rebuffed position on conspiracy, it is not stated in his Five Years Later article, rather the opposite.
I don't recall saying that Margolis had a position on 9/11.
nirgrahamUK:if eric margolis is supposed to have a thorough position on some other specific matter, what is it ? is it relevant to the talk of conspiracies
Go back to my first post about Sibel Edmonds, where I reference a radioshow interview she gave. The article I linked to, quotes Margolis from a 2001 article he wrote.
Natalie:When did I say that I trust the government report 100%?
I never claimed you did.
Natalie:That's not the same as thinking it's all a lie or that someone in the government had planned 9/11
I never said it was.
Natalie:I think it's proven beyond doubt that Ramzi Yousef and KSM were the masterminds (interestingly enough, the official investigation mostly blames KSM).
Proven to whom, by whom?
So, wait, what you're telling me is that I shouldn't listen to the teachings of Ludwig von Mises at the Ludwig von Mises Institute?
liberty student:They have made it explicit that they are "Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School". Make sure you accept that when you feel you have a reason to be here.
And yet, it doesn't say "Advancing the scholarship of anarchism/ libertarianism in the tradition of the Austrian School".
liberty student:Thankfully, humanity at large, and this community in particular, are not constrained by the limits of your vision.
What does this have to do with anything? Your ideology impairs any sound judgement you have.
GilesStratton:So, wait, what you're telling me is that I shouldn't listen to the teachings of Ludwig von Mises at the Ludwig von Mises Institute?
Is that what I wrote?
GilesStratton:And yet, it doesn't say "Advancing the scholarship of anarchism/ libertarianism in the tradition of the Austrian School".
Do you believe that liberty is not compatible with, or a synonym for libertarianism?
GilesStratton:Your ideology impairs any sound judgement you have.
Which ideology is that? Do tell us what it is that I believe.
liberty student:I don't recall saying that Margolis had a position on 9/11.
thanks, i'm unsure why we are talking about him here at all.
he does say believable things, CIA supported Bin Laden at one time. probably right now they are doing bad shit all over the earth. I agree. I would bet money Natalie agrees. but how do i link this up to the thread topic.?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
as i understand it the thread topic is the merits of conspiracy theories, with particular focus on those surrounding 9/11.
do you see it differently?
liberty student:Is that what I wrote?
You didn't make it explicit. But you did make it fairly clear that if one doesn't agree with the teachings of Rothbard, perhaps these fora aren't the best place. Of course, all I pointed out was that I agree with the teachings of Mises (and the subsequent elaborations by Kirzner and Hayek) and often this comes at the expense of points Rothbard has made.
liberty student:Do you believe that liberty is not compatible with, or a synonym for libertarianism?
No, I don't think it's a synonym. I think the two are related, but whilst I value liberty, I'm by no means a libertarian.
liberty student:Which ideology is that? Do tell us what it is that I believe.
Your libertarianism and your devotion to Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe and Block cloud your vision.
And your hedonistic pragmatism clouds yours, Giles.
as i understand it the thread topic is the merits of conspiracy theories, with particular focus on those surrounding 9/11. do you see it differently?