nirgrahamUK:thanks, i'm unsure why we are talking about him here at all.
Because apparently Bin Laden wasn't controlled by the CIA, and Margolis claimed he was. He was incidental, he came up because Natalie wanted to downplay Sibel Edmonds, and I mentioned that she'll also have to downplay or discredit Margolis for making similar statements.
These people aren't truthers, they just have experience and opinions which confict with existing doctrine.
nirgrahamUK:he does say believable things, CIA supported Bin Laden at one time.
Right up until the attacks, which means they would have been supporting him when the Cole attack occurred.
i would think any theory of a conspiracy must be evaluated on its merits. this most recent post doesnt begin to address any particular theories merits, in support of them , or against them. you merely point out that they are speculations of conspiracies... so what?
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
GilesStratton:You didn't make it explicit.
You're right. And I am prepared to make any of my positions explicit, so people don't have to guess or strawman.
GilesStratton: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.
I believe it was "LvMI proclamations" that you originally took issue with, yes? And if one is unhappy with LvMI proclamations, then perhaps LvMI is not the right spot for them. Sound logical?
GilesStratton: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.
Maybe in another thread, not this one, not that I care.
GilesStratton:No, I don't think it's a synonym.
What are the differences between liberty and libertarianism?
GilesStratton:Your libertarianism and your devotion to Rothbard, Rockwell, Hoppe and Block cloud your vision.
I thought you claimed to know my ideology. But then all you can do is make some vague misrepresentations about your perception of my loyalties.
That's so weak you should be ashamed of yourself.
liberty student:Right up until the attacks, which means they would have been supporting him when the Cole attack occurred.
yes, criminally stupid werent they? does that mean no-planes hit the twin towers? <------rhetorical devices
i believe you have agreed elsewhere that some conspiracy theories such as 'no planes' are less credible, (incredible!) ? )
but im at sea over which particular conspiracy theory is being defended? which is it that natalie and I and others are foolish to not believe in?
where can i read about the particular conspiracy theory you feel the evidence is strongest for?
nirgrahamUK:i would think any theory of a conspiracy must be evaluated on its merits.
Agreed.
nirgrahamUK:this most recent post doesnt begin to address any particular theories merits, in support of them , or against them.
I knew you were the clever one in the bunch.
nirgrahamUK:you merely point out that they are speculations of conspiracies... so what?
Indeed. A lot of to-do about very little, isn't it?
nirgrahamUK:but im at sea over which particular conspiracy theory is being defended?
Indeed. And yet there have been no shortage of posts challenging a theory that was never posited. In fact, Giles told me it would be wise to accept the government's conspiracy theory, than the non-theory theory he thought I held.
nirgrahamUK:which is it that natalie and I and others are foolish to not believe in?
I don't follow.
nirgrahamUK:where can i read about the particular conspiracy theory you feel the evidence is strongest for?
I have no idea. I'm not in a movement. I don't belong to a group. I'm simply an anarcho-capitalist who trusts almost nothing proposed by government because that seems to be a position consistent with anarcho-capitalism and austrian theories on the nature of the state.
liberty student:You asked if the US has a foreign policy. I presumed this to mean now.
I meant that it seems very inconsistent due to the clash of various commercial or political interests, typical of a big government representative democracy with the lobbying system.
liberty student:AIPAC is notorious as the most powerful lobby in Washington, I'm quite surprised you aren't aware of that.
I'm quite surprised that you aren't aware of the Saudi or Iranian lobby. Or the CAIR. What makes you think that AIPAC is more powerful?
If they're so powerful, why was Obama pressuring Israel on the settlements? Looks like they haven't been doing their job lately.
liberty student:I don't listen to Chomsky at all. You'll have to do better than insinuating I have a poor source for information.
You mentioned before that Chomsky shaped your views on the foreign policy.
liberty student:The rest of your post is some typical rant against Muslims or Arab countries.
Are these people against Islam? They don't seem very friendly to me, what do you think?
It's amazing to see a libertarian constantly posting collectivist arguments.
It's amazing to see a libertarian constantly denying what's going on right before his eyes while at the same time strongly believing in hidden government (or is it Zionist?) conspiracies without any concrete proof. It's interesting that you're avoiding addressing the actual information that I posted and attack me personally instead. If I'm lying, it's easy to disprove, no?
Is fundamentalist Islam compatible with libertarianism or not? Or any classical civil liberties? Or even with US Constitution?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
ok, im picking up that you are agnostic about what happened around 9/11. though i may be wrong in this judgement.
personally, as skeptical as i am about anything any *administration* says, sometimes they do say things that are for the most part correct. i may be wrong, but in the case of 9/11 the 'orthodox version' of alqaeda hijacking planes etc passes my anarcho-skeptic filter whereas other conspiracy theories which compete to give the true story of the event, do not. Whilst I am not surpised by people who are confused, or have problems with how the 9/11 story might justify a monopolist state with jurisdiction over defence, or how it might justify neo-con policy abroad, )i am one such person) ; i am surprised that the very event itself could present itself so inscutably to someone such as yourself.
Juan: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? What I see is that the concept of a conspiracy theory is fuzzy and subjected to a double standard. If the government says that 20 people secretly plotted to blow up a building, that's not a conspiracy. If other people suggest that the building was blown up as part of a false flag operation then that's a 'conspiracy'. However, I don't see the difference between, say, 'terrorist' conspiracies and the plans of the american government/military. Am I missing something ?
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?
"I don't see the difference between, say, 'terrorist' conspiracies and the plans of the american government/military. Am I missing something ?"
No you are not. You have the official conspiracy theory [i.e. the sacrosanct government version] , obediently,obligingly , unquestioningly [and some would say ,amusingly ] regurgitated ad infinitum by [at a rough guess] 95% or more of "libertarians" , "Ron Paulites", and even most "anarcho -capitalists" [at least here]; versus those pesky competing unofficial , conspiracy theories . Such a dilemma!
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
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."
Natalie:What makes you think that AIPAC is more powerful?
Mearsheimer and Walt. Philip Weiss.
Do you not read LRC or Antiwar.com? Did you not see how AIPAC shut out Ron Paul during the election? Are you familiar with J Street and why it even exists?
Natalie:If they're so powerful, why was Obama pressuring Israel on the settlements? Looks like they haven't been doing their job lately.
First, pressuring isn't sincere based on the history of American involvement in the middle east. The settlements aren't retreating.
Second, this is not your first assertion based on negative proof. It is a logical fallacy.
Natalie:You mentioned before that Chomsky shaped your views on the foreign policy.
I read one book (whose name I can't remember) on foreign policy when I was 14 by Chomsky. I have probably read well over 100 books on foreign policy, politics and history since.
Natalie:Are these people against Islam? They don't seem very friendly to me, what do you think?
It's just typical anti-muslim propaganda.
Natalie:It's amazing to see a libertarian constantly denying what's going on right before his eyes
How so?
Natalie:while at the same time strongly believing in hidden government (or is it Zionist?) conspiracies without any concrete proof.
Two strawmen. Are you a zionist?
Natalie:It's interesting that you're avoiding addressing the actual information that I posted and attack me personally instead.
What information did you post? You posted non-sequiturs. Where was the personal attack? That you rant about muslims? That's what you do.
You may have more anti-islam posts in the last two months on this forum, than the last year and a half from all community members combined.
That's the difference between a libertarian and a conservative. A libertarian examines the motive of individuals. A conservative examines the motives of groups.
What you're doing is pure collectivism.
Natalie:Is fundamentalist Islam compatible with libertarianism or not?
What is fundamentalist Islam?
Natalie:Or any classical civil liberties?
Those mean nothing to me. I am not a classic liberal. I am an anarchist.
Natalie:Or even with US Constitution?
Who cares about the US Constitution? It's a meaningless document with no legal authority.
nirgrahamUK: i may be wrong, but in the case of 9/11 the 'orthodox version' of alqaeda hijacking planes etc passes my anarcho-skeptic filter whereas other conspiracy theories which compete to give the true story of the event, do not.
Why?
nirgrahamUK: Whilst I am not surpised by people who are confused, or have problems with how the 9/11 story might justify a monopolist state with jurisdiction over defence, or how it might justify neo-con policy abroad
The former is an attempt to diminish the mental acuity of the people who question the government's story, the latter is just another strawman.
nirgrahamUK:i am surprised that the very event itself could present itself so inscutably to someone such as yourself.
What is this?
Juan:I just stumbled upon this. Old news, it seems, but still interesting.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
As you say- "old news."
As historian Randolph Bourne famously said: "War is the health of the state".
As onebornfree not nearly as famously says: "war is the state"
As Major General Smedley Butler [the most highly decorated U.S general, bar none] said: "War is a Racket"
liberty student:It's just typical anti-muslim propaganda.
distributing such pictures with intent to prpound neoconosm is propoganda; yet, the people featured in the photos are actually people in the photo's unless they are CIA agents dressed up for a disinfo campaign.....(but they arent).
nirgrahamUK:distributing such pictures with intent to prpound neoconosm is propoganda;
nirgrahamUK:yet, the people featured in the photos are actually people in the photo's unless they are CIA agents dressed up for a disinfo campaign.....(but they arent).
I don't doubt that they are real people despite your pathetic inference that I might think they are not.
But the question is, do they represent all muslims, or some muslims?
As a libertarian, would it be logical to conclude that they are speaking for anyone but themselves?
liberty student:Why?
perhaps it is not superior to some particular conspiracy theory that you may find convincing and which i may yet not have considered. but you are asking me to say why i believe it and not a multitude of other stories. please therefore list each such story that you would require me to consider in order for you to be satisfied, and that way i can go through them with you. otherwise i dont have a hope of doing your question justice. do i?
liberty student:The former is an attempt to diminish the mental acuity of the people who question the government's story,
not at all.
liberty student:the latter is just another strawman.
liberty student:i am surprised that the very event itself could present itself so inscutably to someone such as yourself.
im surprised that you dont have a 'best explanation based on my current knowledge' vis-a-vis what happened at 9/11. I surely wont be so surprised if i meet other 911 agnostics in my future..... :-)
liberty student:I don't doubt that they are real people despite your pathetic inference that I might think they are not.
cool. + i wasnt infering that you thought they are not. I had opened up the possibility of their being disinfo agents. i introduced it, so i thought it proper i dispose of it so that it wouldnt be another threadfork or whatever. plus others that arent you or I are reading this thread (perhaps even a no-planer or two) sorry.
liberty student:But the question is, do they represent all muslims, or some muslims?
liberty student:As a libertarian, would it be logical to conclude that they are speaking for anyone but themselves?
nirgrahamUK:perhaps it is not superior to some particular conspiracy theory that you may find convincing and which i may yet not have considered.
Why do you need a theory? Why not just question individual facts? Is group think really necessary for understanding?
nirgrahamUK:but you are asking me to say why i believe it and not a multitude of other stories.
No, I asked you why you believed it. Your belief is a positive position. Why do you believe it? What about it do you feel is truthful? How did you come to that/those conclusions?
nirgrahamUK:please therefore list each such story that you would require me to consider in order for you to be satisfied, and that way i can go through them with you. otherwise i dont have a hope of doing your question justice. do i?
I'm asking you, if you feel your "belief" in a particular story has passed any test of intellectual scrutiny you have posed. Have you ever considered another theory? Have you examined the various criticisms of the theory you believe? Did you start out not accepting the official story without scrutiny, and if not, why?
nirgrahamUK:im surprised that you dont have a 'best explanation based on my current knowledge' vis-a-vis what happened at 9/11.
How can I have an explanation, when I willingly admit, my knowledge is incomplete? It's beyond the limits of my knowledge.
liberty student:Why do you need a theory? Why not just question individual facts? Is group think really necessary for understanding?
this is semantics,instead of theory think history
I need one so that i can have a more comprehensive understanding of history and the present world, i need it so that if i meet someone who lost a relative on a 911 plane, i know to act sympathetic and not tell them that they are lying ...
liberty student:No, I asked you why you believed it. Your belief is a positive position. Why do you believe it? What about it do you feel is truthful? How did you come to that/those conclusions?
I believe it because it positively sheds light on the present state of the world, and its content does not contradict my other accumulated knowledge nor my standards of credulity and possibility. I feel its true that there is a man called Osama Bin Laden that rejoices in the conversion and death of infidels. I feel its true that he has co-'consipators', a label for this collection of individuals sharing common goals and cooperating is Al-Qaeda etc. I feel that its perfectly possible for the Saudi hijackers to be Al-Qaeda, and to hijack planes. and having had flight lessons to pilot planes into buildings.
for bin laden and al-qaeda there is a wealth of audio/video/literature. im not sure if its an issue of dispute here?for 9/11 i have audio/video/literature of planes hitting buildings and of investigations which reveal it be Al-Qaeda planned, and Al-Qaeda enacted. and Al Qaeda rejoiced in.
liberty student:How can I have an explanation, when I willingly admit, my knowledge is incomplete? It's beyond the limits of my knowledge.
im unsure whether we have 'possible' limits of your knowledge or just an admission that your evidence thus far accumulated is limited but that theoretically is there for the accumulating...
I would ask you what is it about 'Al-Qaeda' attacking 'america' on '9/11' is placed firmly beyond the limits of your knowledge when knowledge of the Chinese hosting the most recent olympics and knowledge that the CIA instigated the Bay of Pigs fiasco are within the limits of your knowledge?
nirgrahamUK:for bin laden and al-qaeda there is a wealth of audio/video/literature. im not sure if its an issue of dispute here?
There is an enormous amount of audio, video and literature making the case to invade Iraq. How does that media differ from this media?
im talking of evidence of their existance (do you deny it? ) and their activities, im not talking of any arguments about we should do this or that. which is the 'making the case' element you refer to.
nirgrahamUK:I would ask you what is it about 'Al-Qaeda' attacking 'america' on '9/11' is placed firmly beyond the limits of your knowledge when knowledge of the Chinese hosting the most recent olympics and knowledge that the CIA instigated the Bay of Pigs fiasco are within the limits of your knowledge?
Who said they are within the limits of my knowledge? I have no reason to disbelieve (or believe) the former, I am uneducated on the latter. But in both instances, I would be open to reinterpretation or new information that challenged accepted premises.
There is a great article by Raimondo on antiwar.com and linked at LRC this weekend.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/10/911-our-truth-and-theirs/
On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers, wielding nothing more lethal than box-cutters, commandeered four airliners, and turned them into lethal missiles, three of which managed to hit their targets – the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – while a fourth crashed in a field before it could strike its intended target — the White House. One of the hijackers had been in the United States since the mid-1990s, and the others, according to subsequent investigations, entered, exited, and re-entered the United States regularly starting in 2000.
In the years and months prior to 9/11, the terrorists remained undetected: there was not a hint, and certainly no warning, that we were about to experience the worst terrorist attack in our history. In spite of all the billions spent on "anti-terrorism" programs during the Clinton years, and the combined efforts of our intelligence community and those of our allies’, Mohammed Atta and his cohorts managed to evade detection until the day they emblazoned their vengeance across the sky and pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in US history.
That, at least, is the official story. As to what the real story is – well, we’re not allowed to ask.
President Obama’s "green czar," one Van Jones, was recently pressured into resigning. His crime? He had once signed a letter originating with one of the "9/11 Truth" organizations calling for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks. No, he hadn’t declared that 9/11 was an "inside job," as some of the more flamboyant "truthers" assert: indeed, he hadn’t challenged any one specific aspect of the official story. All he had asked for was a new investigation – and once this got out (thanks to Fox News nut-job Glenn Beck), he was shown the door.
This is the way our society deals with uncomfortable questions about "official" explanations for the inexplicable – by purging all dissenters, and even anybody who asks a question without necessarily having a ready-made answer. To the stake with them! Burn the heretics! Move along, nothing to see here – and don’t ask questions unless you want to completely marginalize yourself, lose your job, and be subjected to an intensive hate campaign.
We are asked to believe that 19 men, armed with the most basic weapons, somehow managed to elude the biggest, most expensively-accoutered intelligence apparatus in the world — and the intelligence agencies of our allies, to boot. Utilizing nothing but box-cutters and the knowledge gleaned from a few weeks at flight school, these supermen somehow managed to steer those planes into two of the most visible potential terrorist targets in the US, one of which had been successfully targeted by terrorists before. They did this with no help from any foreign intelligence agency, no nation-state in on the plot, and they did it for less than $100,000.
Really?
The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such an assertion seems. Eight years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more anemic –and inadequate – than ever. Yet anyone who questions the official story – the narrative of 19 Arab dudes going on what would seem to be a rather quixotic jihad, haphazardly making their way through a strange foreign country on their own, all the while readying themselves for The Day That Changed History – is denounced as a "conspiracy theorist," a crackpot, and worse.
Of course, some of the people who challenge the official story are, indeed, crackpots: they think some kind of "controlled demolition" took place inside the World Trade Center, and that no plane hit the Pentagon.
This is very convenient for enforcers of the Official Truth: it’s easy to write these people off as nutso, and even easier to tar everyone who questions crucial aspects of the approved narrative with the same broad brush.
More critical minds, however, will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair, which is this: those nineteen hijackers simply could not have pulled it off without outside assistance of some sort, by which I mean to say help from a foreign power acting covertly in this country. The sheer complexity of the operation would no doubt have been enough to deter anyone, even al-Qaeda, from launching it in the first place: the sheer odds against it succeeding were simply too great. There had to have been some form of outside assistance – outside al-Qaeda, that is – for the plot to have gone as far as it did right up until zero hour: and I believe there was, because there is plenty of evidence that strongly suggests it.
A few weeks after 9/11, I was the first – and, as far as I know, only – writer to draw attention to the fact that, along with the thousand or so Muslims rounded up in the wake of the attacks, as many as 200 Israelis were also taken into custody by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the feds. The subhead in the Washington Post story was quite explicit that these guys weren’t picked up for ordinary visa violations: "Government calls Several Cases ‘of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation."
What, I wondered, was the Israeli connection to 9/11? In any case, from that point on it was a legitimate question to ask, and, indeed, unknown to me, the news department over at Fox News was asking it — and, a few weeks after my column appeared, they answered it.
In an astonishing four-part series on Israeli spying in the US, top Fox News reporter Carl Cameron detailed how Israeli agents on American soil had tracked the hijackers, as they moved amongst us, and, in addition, had launched what appeared to be a wide-ranging and quite aggressive intelligence-collection operation directed at US government offices across the country. The allegations contained in his report were denied – and the story (which soon disappeared from the Fox News web site) was never followed up, but Cameron’s reportage haunts us today, and mocks us from the archives where it has been gathering dust for eight years. "Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations," reported Cameron:
"A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’"
Over the next three nights, Cameron detailed the existence of an underground Israeli army in the US armed with a dazzling array of hi-tech spying devices and techniques that enabled them to penetrate our vital communications, including those utilized by law enforcement. His reports also described the consequences for any law enforcement officials who dared raise questions about this: their careers, Cameron told us, would be effectively over.
Cameron’s reporting was viewed by millions. Of course, the Israelis and our own government denied everything. Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli government, scoffed: Israel, spying on the United States? Why, who ever heard of such a thing?! The US government, for its part, disdained all such reports as "an urban myth." The Israel lobby moved quickly to make sure the Cameron reports were thrown down the Memory Hole, and Cameron was accused of – you guessed it! – "anti-Semitism," on account of having spent time in the Middle East in his youth.
Yet the story persisted. Die Zeit, the respected German weekly, ran a piece entitled "Next Door to Mohammed Atta," in which further evidence the Israelis had been tracking the hijackers quite closely was cited as coming from French intelligence sources. This was followed up by a story in Salon – hardly a bastion of anti-Semitic agitation – which gave a long and detailed account of the Israeli spying operation, as outlined by Cameron, and concluded that it was in large part meant as a diversionary tactic. The same author did a comprehensive follow-up in Counterpunch, after The Nation spiked it. Reputable newspapers like the Scottish Sunday Herald reported the known facts.
Yet the 9/11 Commission did not so much as mention this aspect of the 9/11 story. Nor has Fox News ever followed up on Cameron’s reporting: they haven’t disavowed it, either. They, along with the rest of the "news" media in this country, simply pretend it never happened. When Arianna Huffington purged me from blogging on the Huffington Post, she cited my own reporting on this story as the reason: "Oh, come on, Dhaaa-link! You know dat’s anti-Semitic!"
Really? Is Fox News anti-Semitic, too? Is Die Zeit? Salon? Le Monde? How about The Forward?
Of course, Arianna is an airhead, but her instinct for self-preservation at all costs – yes, even at the cost of the truth – is indicative of what’s involved here. I was told, before I undertook to challenge the "official" 9/11 story, that I would pay for it by being cast out of the "mainstream" whilst being mercilessly smeared. In any event, since I was never all that interested in being considered "mainstream" – in part because I knew the whole concept of "mainstream" was very over – and because the prospect of being viciously attacked didn’t faze me in the least, I was undeterred. And I remain so to this day.
What I want to know is this: does Fox News stand by Carl Cameron’s reporting on the question of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Yes – or no? If so, then what is their loudest mouth – I refer, of course, to Glenn Beck – doing smearing someone as a "Truther" who is asking the same sort of questions asked by Fox News reporter Cameron? If Van Jones must go, because he’s supposedly a "Truther," then Cameron must go, too.
No, I don’t expect an answer to my question any time soon – or, indeed, any time at all. I just want my readers to contemplate the implications of that, and what it says about the veracity of the "official" 9/11 narrative
well thats that then
nirgrahamUK: im talking of evidence of their existance (do you deny it? ) and their activities, im not talking of any arguments about we should do this or that. which is the 'making the case' element you refer to.
You didn't answer my question.
liberty student: nirgrahamUK:for bin laden and al-qaeda there is a wealth of audio/video/literature. im not sure if its an issue of dispute here? There is an enormous amount of audio, video and literature making the case to invade Iraq. How does that media differ from this media?
I want to know what is the difference in the evidence between the existence and activities of Al Qaeda, and the evidence of the existence of WMDs and intentions of Saddam Hussein? What about the Iraq media and the Al Qaeda media is different? I mean, obviously in hindsight, the Iraq media has been shown to be false, just like more than 30 years after Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident has been proven false. But what about the Al Qaeda info is different?
The sources seem the same. The dissemination seems the same. The political outcome and incentives seem remarkably similar.
I'm not saying Bin Laden doesn't/didn't exist, and that he wasn't the most evil bastard ever. I'm not saying that Al Qaeda doesn't exist or that they had nothing to do with 9/11. What I am saying is, how can you positively know these things? How did you come to know them? How can you know that they flew the planes? The disseminators of that account is the US government, which doesn't have a very good record on honesty. The media started announcing it was Bin Laden, while the last flight was still in the air, and yet Bin Laden hadn't released one of his home movies taking responsibility for it yet.
Is it possible, that because you have heard it so many times, and so many people seem to believe it, and it seems to be the predominant theory, and that alternate theories are treated as quackery, that you may have some sort of bias at play?
I don't know. That's why I am asking you. How do you know those guys were on those planes? Because the US government told you? Then I would ask if the US government has been credible in their report of 9/11. If you say yes, fair enough. If you say no, then I would ask, how you could believe any of the story if you don't believe the account was credible. To which you might reply, "Well, I know this bit for sure has to be right", which leads me back to,
How do you know that?
Btw, I'm willing to quit anytime.
liberty student:Btw, I'm willing to quit anytime.
ABORT SEQUENCE INITIATED.
wilderness: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.
Obama's views on Islam
The problem is, communism/socialism/marxism and other collectivism is still there, just under different names so as not to scare people off. The Cold War itself was not just the military standoff between US and USSR but the battle of ideologies inside the Western countries as well - both in societies and in governments (no other ideologies were allowed in the socialist countries for obvious reasons). Many governments, including US, couldn't resist the gradual slide towards socialism since it awarded them more power. Even without a clear opponent, the struggle is still there, as we can see with pretty much everything Obama is trying to do.
wilderness: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.
David Horowitz thinks it's some kind of "unholy alliance" between Islam and American Left (meaning all kinds of full-fledged collectivists). And he used to be a 60s radical himself, so he knows that mentality very well. And this is happening in other "democratic" countries as well.
wilderness: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.
I don't think there's one single will behind all this. More like various individuals and groups collude and conspire and promote division in society to advance their own goals - from government officials to the academia. What's with releasing the mass murderer for oil, for example? Don't they have any respect for the victims' families at all?
As for Sharia law, it's already happening, for example in UK.
Natalie:David Horowitz thinks it's some kind of "unholy alliance" between Islam and American Left (meaning all kinds of full-fledged collectivists). And he used to be a 60s radical himself, so he knows that mentality very well. And this is happening in other "democratic" countries as well.
Glenn Beck Attacks Ron Paul Donors (and David Horowitz Smears LRC)
Next David Horowitz decries the “strain of isolationism and anarchism” in America, especially as represented by “libertarian websites like LewRockwell.com,” which are “totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country.”
David Horowitz Slanders Ron Paul, Iraq Vets
Yeah, David Horowitz, now there is a source you can trust!
the U.S. is two-tongued as individual Amerindians declared. it fights to appear publicly that it is "the land of the free and the home of the brave", but leaves the back door open for all those it explicitly aggresses against to come right in and join the show. deception. and yes these are a bunch of individuals with all these crazy ideas. it's most notably pronounced by the article on how the Fed bought academia, etc... How many free market professors are left? - that in and of itself shows the indoctrination and can be sprinkled in other fields as well such as the social sciences collecting data upon the masses making general statements of a culture trying to establish Social Theories that don't even work. My professor in Social Theory not too many years ago at least had the gall to state, 'None of these theories actually work. They are only being taught so students can see what the field is arguing, but these theories by no means have much to say about society at all.' I'm glad he was at least that honest about it. (these same theories are still around and haven't anything to do with the individual on the individual basis). It is the arguing point, besides the flaws that Anthropology bring, it does argue with Sociology on this point - heavily, but I digress due to whole other topic. Yet this structure of the education system, as I'm sure you and others are well aware of as it is not anything new to discuss, is bogus and state indoctrination for the most part.
liberty student: David Horowitz Slanders Ron Paul, Iraq Vets Yeah, David Horowitz, now there is a source you can trust!
He didn't smear anyone. Some students created a hoax flier and his site reported on it.
I didn't look into his clash with LewRockwell.com, but it's probably due him being conservative and pro-interventionist. That doesn't mean that his (or his website) research on the left is all bogus. Just look at Obama and his clearly socialist agenda.
Juan:LS, I swear I didn't see your message before posting mine =P.
Horowitz is a neocon warmonger. He's an apologist for the Iraq war, and one of those intellectuals who provide cover for the regime. Why any libertarian would reference him on politics or society is beyond me. He's publicly supported mass murder and torture, and he has argued against everything LvMI stands for.
Watch the nutjob in the video at the bottom of this article.
Natalie:I didn't look into his clash with LewRockwell.com, but it's probably due him being conservative and pro-interventionist.
He's a neocon.
Natalie:That doesn't mean that his (or his website) research on the left is all bogus. Just look at Obama and his clearly socialist agenda.
All government is socialist. All government tends towards socialism. All democracies are socialist. Obama is just Bush Part 2. Bush was a socialist too. But guys like Horowitz kissed Bush's ass and enabled him.
We're libertarians because we oppose all coercive government, not leftist government. We're libertarians because we oppose force, we don't come up with religious paranoia to justify the mass murder of civilians in foreign countries.
At least, that is why I am a libertarian.
Also, this dude is pro-interventionist. Assuming you were serious when you said you support the NAP, then why would you listen to an interventionist on foreign policy matters? It doesn't make sense.
It's like getting birth control tips from Octomom.
liberty student:I want to know what is the difference in the evidence between the existence and activities of Al Qaeda, and the evidence of the existence of WMDs
WMDs were found in Iraq so there is no difference, both exist.
Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (FOXNews)Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads (USA Today)Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq (FOXNews)U.S. removed nuclear material from Iraq (CNN)US reveals Iraq nuclear operation (BBC)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:We're libertarians because we oppose all coercive government, not leftist government.
All government is coercive. However, libertarianism is not the same as anarchism.
We're libertarians because we oppose force, we don't come up with religious paranoia to justify the mass murder of civilians in foreign countries.
What religious paranoia?
liberty student:Also, this dude is pro-interventionist. Assuming you were serious when you said you support the NAP, then why would you listen to an interventionist on foreign policy matters? It doesn't make sense.
Most people are statists and, hence, interventionists. That doesn't mean that all of their research is lies.
Besides, not all libertarians are knowledgeable in everything and might engage in double standards or oversimplifying complex issues.
Poptech: liberty student:I want to know what is the difference in the evidence between the existence and activities of Al Qaeda, and the evidence of the existence of WMDs WMDs were found in Iraq so there is no difference, both exist. Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (FOXNews)Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads (USA Today)Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq (FOXNews)U.S. removed nuclear material from Iraq (CNN)US reveals Iraq nuclear operation (BBC)
Like clockwork. Bush Admin propaganda. Absolutely priceless.
Report holds out the possibility that WMD may still be found . . . one day
Mr Blair admitted yesterday: "I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy."
Fallout from WMD search failure
Report fuels Iraq WMD debate
The CIA report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, said Iraq's WMD program had essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Poptech, are you the same Poptech from HotAir?
Natalie:All government is coercive. However, libertarianism is not the same as anarchism.
What does that mean? You said you were an anarchist.
Natalie:What religious paranoia?
Your anti-Islam fixation.
Natalie:Most people are statists and, hence, interventionists. That doesn't mean that all of their research is lies.
In Horowitz's case, he is a notorious liar and propagandist. He's a very well paid (by private sources) to be a right wing agitator, and to defend certain interests. I'm absolutely amazed, that someone as well read as you, isn't aware of this, or that you may choose to overlook this. Horowitz is probably in the top 10 rogues gallery of neocon pundits during the Bush era.
This is the same problem I have tried to get across with Giles. If a researcher is employed by the state, then he is more likely to defend the state, and this is particularly true of economists. I posted an article that did an investigation into such just last week. Well, who is paying Horowitz? What are his principles? If he supports torture and murder, then as a libertarian or anarchist, wouldn't you say that perhaps his analysis might be skewed? That he has heavy biases. Which isn't to say that we can escape bias, I'm just curious about what attracts a libertarian or anarchist to the biases of someone who is pro-violence. What makes his analysis of Muslims or the Arab world, or American foreign policy any better than anyone elses?
Natalie:Besides, not all libertarians are knowledgeable in everything and might engage in double standards or oversimplifying complex issues.
Apparently. But again, this is like getting birth control tips from Octomom. Libertarians are pretty bright people generally. One needs to be to understand principle over pragmatism. I think even a child knows that killing is wrong, which is what makes non-libertarians so disgusting at times, that they have no moral compass or capacity to distinguish good from evil.
I'd advise you to do some research into Horowitz on your own, but I think a lot of your responses (second best government, appeal to the Constitution) don't necessarily jive up with libertarianism in the NAP sense, even though you've come out for the NAP. Maybe you're working through that, but I suspect you're a bit more conservative (anti-left) than you are libertarian (anti-right and anti-left). Which is fine, and why I was asking before. I wanted to know where you stood, and to verify that understanding with you, so I don't assume you are for or against something that you may not be.
liberty student:Like clockwork. Bush Admin propaganda. Absolutely priceless.
1. Yes or no, were over 500 WMDs found in Iraq since the invasion?
Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (FOXNews)
"The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003"
2. Yes or no, was 2 tons of nuclear material removed from Iraq?
U.S. removed nuclear material from Iraq (CNN)
"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said."
liberty student:Poptech, are you the same Poptech from HotAir?
Of course. I was banned from there for not supporting neo-con and social conservative positions.
Poptech: liberty student:Like clockwork. Bush Admin propaganda. Absolutely priceless. 1. Yes or no, were over 500 WMDs found in Iraq since the invasion? Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (FOXNews) "The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003" 2. Yes or no, was 2 tons of nuclear material removed from Iraq? U.S. removed nuclear material from Iraq (CNN) "The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said."
I already debunked this with my later references. The CIA and British government admit there was no WMD program in place, and no WMDs were found. I know the game you are playing, I've played it with many neocons before. One really has to stretch the proof and use uncorroborated Bush admin sources to make the case you are. It's sad that you're trying quite honestly.
Poptech: liberty student:Poptech, are you the same Poptech from HotAir? Of course. I was banned from there for not supporting neo-con and social conservative positions.
I read many of your posts, and you seemed to be a pretty solid neocon to me. Where are you going next?
liberty student:I already debunked this with my later references.
No you didn't. Were 500 WMDs found in Iraq or not? Were 2 tons of nuclear material removed from Iraq?
liberty student:I read many of your posts, and you seemed to be a pretty solid neocon to me. Where are you going next?
Please define neo-con because you don't even understand the definition of the word as you continue to misuse it as if you don't own a dictionary. The ignorance here at Mises of what a neo-con is simply amazing. So please explain why I was banned for not supporting actual neo-con positions.