liberty student:Both sides see civilians as fair game. And Poptech supports the actions of the US military.
And both sides are wrong. That doesn't make civilians any more guilty. (So both PT and Conagain are dead wrong if that's the case)
Conagain:yes, and more do too if they think what the government does to other people is none of their business.
You are mentally sick.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student: And Poptech supports the actions of the US military.
Please get it right, I don't support all the actions of the U.S. Military, I support the U.S. military not every action it is ordered to do.
liberty student:Wars are not won when the military forces of the other side are depleted. They are won when the citizenry capitulates. That is why Iraq is still a war, 6 years after Hussein's army was crushed.
Exactly the U.S. military is not a police force or something to undertake nation building.
Poptech:Please get it right, I don't support all the actions of the U.S. Military, I support the U.S. military not every action it is ordered to do.
That makes a lot of sense. So you support them, even when they do things you don't support what they are doing?
How erudite!
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: 3000 dead "assumes facts not in evidence"
Ok which one of these people don't exist....
List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001
Maybe you will go tell your insanity to the families of these people.
liberty student:That makes a lot of sense. So you support them, even when they do things you don't support what they are doing?
It is not complicated, I support the U.S. military (the soldiers) and can disagree with their mission. It makes perfect sense.
Poptech:It is not complicated, I support the U.S. military (the soldiers) and can disagree with their mission. It makes perfect sense.
My point exactly. If you separate the actors from the action, it makes perfect sense. Also, blunt force trauma to the skull can help you accomplish this understanding if you are confused by Austrian techniques like praxeology or methodological individualism...
Laughing Man: ...what? What does testimonials concerning the WTC crashes have to do with the bill of rights?
...what? What does testimonials concerning the WTC crashes have to do with the bill of rights?
To more fully answer your question:
It seems to me that you, I, and others have 3 possible choices for overall methodology in reviewing /analyzing all alleged 911 "facts" and "events".1] Governmental Pre -Bias:
Utilizes a pre-existing, pre- review, pre-bias towards the governments story when reviewing any and all "facts " ,from whatever source, about 911.
Mentally lazy and convenient, however this "method" ultimately has nothing to do with real analysis that seeks real answers. 'nuff said.2] A Neutral, "Scientific" Method:
this requires complete and consistent neutrality on the part of the observer/reviewer throughout review - that is, a concerted, conscious, ongoing effort to remove all pre- existing bias one way or another on the part of the reviewer to try and ensure neither bias for, or bias against the official story , but at the same time an equally concerted, ongoing conscious effort is made to ensure no bias either for or against any other [unofficial] version of events, no matter how outlandish it/they might seem at the outset, is made both before and during such review , until that review has been concluded. 3] A "Legal" "Bill of Rights" Style Methodology For 911 Investigation - Automatic Pre - Existing Bias Against All Aspects of the Governments Story Using a "Bill of Rights" methodology , the reviewer , pre-review, purposely takes the viewpoint that the government and its sycophants [such as N.I.S.T.] is probably lying and has good reason to lie, and that therefor, without an exhaustive, review of any/ all government supplied "facts" and evidence, absolutely nothing it says about 911 should be trusted, until it can be verified many times, from many sources, as should nothing be trusted that supports the governments story that appears to emanate from private sources outside the government -[as it might not really be from outside the government after all ]The Bill of Rights / Rules of Evidence - Instant, One Size Fits All Pre- Bias Against All Government "Evidence"As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Bill of Rights was a [failed] attempt to ensure that in at least all federal trials, that pre- existing bias against all aspects of the governments case was automatic, par for the course, perfectly legitimate and completely understandable , given that those trials would occur in the governments own courtrooms.
Via the provisions of the Bill of Rights, all government evidence was to be subject to strict rules regarding its admissibility into court as evidence to be used in any criminal trial the government prosecuted.
e.g. The 6th Amendment and Eye- Witness Testimony
The Bill of Rights might not be enforceable any longer in a US courtroom, but that does not prevent others from utilizing those same principles in their own , private investigations into the events of 911, by their maintenance of a consistent, healthy skepticism towards , for example, all supposed eye-witness testimony that supports/confirms the governments story ,when those "witnesses" are unknown, and [obviously] "un"-cross examined in court [we only know their purported testimony via the press/media].
Without such cross examination, I would suggest that it is extremely risky to just go ahead and assume that those claimed witnesses are actually telling the truth, or are not being deliberately misquoted etc.
P.S. by extension, it also seems perfectly reasonable to me to _not_ assume the truth/veracity of any of the supposed cable network "live" media footage for that day[ 0911/01] , since most of that footage was in fact, presented by corporations with direct links and ownership to/by major league U.S. corporate weapons manufacturers ,and to the Pentagon itself, and is therfor highly suspect, to say the least
My 2 previous [now "canned", or locked] 911 threads :
"Austrian Economics Professor Dr. Morgan Reynolds Interviewed on 911" : http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10530.aspx" Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer" : http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/6714.aspx
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
I see how your bias against government investigation is blinding you.
scineram: I see how your bias against government investigation is blinding you.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or not. If not, then a is in order.
If you are serious, then I should say that in my own investigations I have always been aware of my own pre-bias against the official story and have always tried to compensate the other way to a degree[ attempting investigative neutrality- i.e choice {2} in my preceding post above ].
In other words, even though I never from day 1 believed the official story, I have always tried to keep an open mind and remind myself of my own pre-existing prejudices towards the official story and to not entirely discount it until proven false in my own mind.
That is why it took me so long, until mid 2008 in fact , before I finally became aware of the most obvious, glaring fact sitting right under my nose the whole time - the "plane into building videos" were all fakes .
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:That is why it took me so long, until mid 2008 in fact , before I finally became aware of the most obvious, glaring fact sitting right under my nose the whole time - the "plane into building videos" were all fakes .
Yes all six major news casts were faked in real time and the thousands of eye witnesses all liars (including my sister).
What happened in 2008 is you lost all sense of reality.
From LRC today
Excerpted
Afghanistan: A War of Lies (link)by Eric MargolisPresident Barack Obama and Congress are wrestling with widening the war in Afghanistan. After eight years of military operations costing US $236 billion, the US commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of "failure," aka defeat.Truth is war’s first casualty. The Afghan War’s biggest untruth is, "we’ve got to fight terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home." Politicians and generals keep using this canard to justify a war they can’t otherwise explain or justify.Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.Not true. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Osama bin Laden, on whom 9/11 is blamed, was in Afghanistan as a guest because he was a national hero for fighting the Soviets in the 1980’s and was aiding Taliban’s struggle against the Afghan Communist-dominated Northern Alliance afterwards.Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and to employ Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies. Most of the so-called "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were being run by Pakistani intelligence to prepare mujahidin fighters for combat in Indian-held Kashmir.In 2001, Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have since been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Obama insists 68,000 or more US troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from reacquiring "terrorist training camps."This claim, like Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They don’t need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps.
More at the link. Emphasis mine.
liberty student: From LRC today Excerpted Afghanistan: A War of Lies (link)by Eric MargolisPresident Barack Obama and Congress are wrestling with widening the war in Afghanistan. After eight years of military operations costing US $236 billion, the US commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of "failure," aka defeat.Truth is war’s first casualty. The Afghan War’s biggest untruth is, "we’ve got to fight terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home." Politicians and generals keep using this canard to justify a war they can’t otherwise explain or justify.Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.Not true. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Osama bin Laden, on whom 9/11 is blamed, was in Afghanistan as a guest because he was a national hero for fighting the Soviets in the 1980’s and was aiding Taliban’s struggle against the Afghan Communist-dominated Northern Alliance afterwards.Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and to employ Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies. Most of the so-called "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were being run by Pakistani intelligence to prepare mujahidin fighters for combat in Indian-held Kashmir.In 2001, Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have since been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Obama insists 68,000 or more US troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from reacquiring "terrorist training camps."This claim, like Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They don’t need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps. More at the link. Emphasis mine.
What a Shame
Although completely predictable, it is such a shame that Mr Margolis remains so ignorant about the events [and none-events] of 9/11 that he writes articles that perpetuate the myth of terrorists flying planes into buildings, when it is so easily demonstrable that no such events happened . [i.e no planes into/through buildings = no terrorists].
It is also a shame[ to say the least! ] that because his article fits the standard run-of -the -mill libertarian theory of how the world works [i.e. we were attacked because we've been meddling in "their" affairs- whoever "they " are seen to be ], that Lew Rockwell should publish such fanciful tripe on his website when he has a far more knowledgeable [about the events of 9/11] contributor to his web site in the person of Professor Morgan Reynolds- who also happens to be an adjunct scholar of the LVM institute.
As I once remarked to Harry Browne, the " libertarian 911 theory" is logical, convenient, but consistently ignores all major scientific evidence that completely refutes it- all in the name of some imagined political gain [for libertarians].
As Mr Reynolds and others are aware , 9/11 was a true, real life "Operation Northwoods", that is, a deliberate, pre-meditated attack on America orchestrated by the government [i.e the miltary], and others who stood to directly gain by it, and directly facilitated by the media, who knowingly broadcast fake, computer generated images of aircraft striking [computer generated] images of WTC2 etc. that day - images and footage that completely defy fundamental laws of physics.
That Mr Rockwell consistently ignores Mr Reynolds despite his credentials and vastly superior knowledge about the events of 9/11 and the irrefutable science behind his claims , is either a sign of gross ignorance, or negligence, on Mr Rockwell's part, OR, it is a deliberate policy designed to increase "libertarian credibility", and to prevent imagined loss of monetary contributions.
It seems that _really_ close examination of controversial events is only considered "right" at LRC when it is safe, and concerns events at least 40 years old[ e.g. todays blog carries a post about the JFK autopsy, for example] .
Mr Rockwell needs to "wake up and smell the coffee"- at least as far as 911 and what 140 ton aircraft can and cannot do when colliding with 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, in real life goes.
I'm sure that Mr Reynolds would be more than happy to improve his [or your] sense of smell, [as would I ]
Otherwise, like I said, such a shame.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: images and footage that completely defy fundamental laws of physics.
That's when I realized that all of modern physics was itself a conspiracy theory to set up 9/11. See before it even existed, the US government forged these documents under the pseudonym "Newton". They are full of government propaganda and prove that a plane should be able to topple a tower if it flies into one.If you look past this propaganda, you'll see that the so called "laws" of physics are actually wrong and that the plane should have bounced off the tower instead of toppling it.
I can tell you've done a lot of reading of these government lies called modern science. You need to discard physics as well as logic and reason in order to see the real truth. Peace man.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: It seems that _really_ close examination of controversial events is only considered "right" at LRC when it is safe, and concerns events at least 40 years old[ e.g. todays blog carries a post about the JFK autopsy, for example] . Mr Rockwell needs to "wake up and smell the coffee"- at least as far as 911 and what 140 ton aircraft can and cannot do when colliding with 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, in real life goes. I'm sure that Mr Reynolds would be more than happy to improve his [or your] sense of smell, [as would I ] Otherwise, like I said, such a shame.
"It seems that _really_ close examination of controversial events is only considered "right" at LRC when it is safe, and concerns events at least 40 years old[ e.g. todays blog carries a post about the JFK autopsy, for example] ."
And, just like magic, as if to prove my own point from yesterday , todays top of the page article on Rockwell's site is entitled :" Was Lee Harvey Oswald a Federal Agent?
liberty student: Poptech:Please get it right, I don't support all the actions of the U.S. Military, I support the U.S. military not every action it is ordered to do. That makes a lot of sense. So you support them, even when they do things you don't support what they are doing? How erudite!
I support the pimp for being a pimp, but not for pimping.
I support the rapist for being a rapist but not for the rape.
I support the thief for being a thief, but not for thieving.
...
I suppose it is a little strange to separate actors from their actions seeing as their actions is what makes them actors.
Btw, the planes on 9/11 were holograms and the Pentagon never existed and still doesn't exist.