We long since passed the point where we should assume USG funny-business until proven otherwise.
thats an epistemological shortcut that results in considerably more work on the rhetorical front. everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even agents of the state.
Aristophanes:you are not smart, then.
Or you just have no point, and would rather play games than actually present one.
Want to clarify what you're talking about, bro?
I've finally learned that if a post in this thread has the letters b, r, and o together, one can skip it without any loss.
BLArrrgg!!
Aristophanes:"Drill" - what the public is told when police units have suspicion of an event and need to search, but cannot blend in. The point is to not scare the people; 'the public are not the best consumers of classified threat indicators'.
[Citation(s) needed]
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Or you just have no point, and would rather play games than actually present one. Want to clarify what you're talking about, bro?
Watch that fucking video in the post with the timestamp i posted. God, it turned into a riddle after I wanted to troll you for a few posts (which was successful), but I figured you'd "get it" at some point. Watch the ry dawson video. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. The LINES were posted above and below the video...you're a pretty clever thinker, I see. It started as a joke because I figured you were using the FB video as "evidence" for conspiracy which is a fucking retarded thing to say and will only serve to discredit people when there is a real staged event "drill."
@Auto
you know that is what they do. Besides, where am I gonna find a site that will volunteer that kind of info. Save for finding an SOP manual for the FBI unspecified hazard scenarios... If they have an unconfirmed threat they will investigate and tell people to stay calm, "it is just a drill." But, "drill" as in "war game" or "military exercise" is very different and I think that is where most people are coming from, but don't know the difference.
Aristophanes:you know that is what they do.
If I knew that, I wouldn't have implicitly asked you for one or more source citations for that information.
Aristophanes:Besides, where am I gonna find a site that will volunteer that kind of info. Save for finding an SOP manual for the FBI unspecified hazard scenarios... If they have an unconfirmed threat they will investigate and tell people to stay calm, "it is just a drill."
Well how do you know that? Or are you masquerading assumption as knowledge?
Aristophanes:But, "drill" as in "war game" or "military exercise" is very different and I think that is where most people are coming from, but don't know the difference.
That could be, but if so, then it seems the line between the two is getting blurrier all the time.
The difference is stark. One is where the military or intelligence agencies are using war games/military exercises as a cover for moving real-time real-world military assets around sometimes resulting in covert operations covers.
The other is when some random police officer gets a report that there is a tip of a bomb, but it is unverified and that someone needs to investigate without raising a panic. Why do you think that is controversial?
It is only blurry because of the dumbasses that think that the CIA or w/e are going to bend over and blow up tin can bombs and make fake FB pages. Real false flags are geopolitical events. They are staged to further a serious military, international, or nefarious agenda (not that it cannot be all three or some combination of them) not for gun control or "to take your rights away."
Aristophanes:Watch that fucking video in the post with the timestamp i posted.
Yeah I skimmed through it, and from what I gather it's some random douchebag pulling some more-clever-than-thou stuff about how anyone who suspects conspiracy basically wears a tinfoil hat, blahblah blah. I did happen to catch a nice little few seconds there though where he shat on his whole video by admitting it is basically undeniable that the FBI engages in false flag activity and could have aided in it or even committed it themselves.
So basically, you're an idiot if you suspect government ties, but you're naive if you don't.
I'd say that's about right on par with what I'd expect from you.
Wait...Was that you in the video bro?
some random douchebag
ryan dawson has made the most credible 9/11 video out there. I figured you'd know who he was...
In other words, don't be a fucking retard and start claiming things before anything is known about a subject. (or using a god damn FB page TIMESTAMP as proof in tow.)
I did happen to catch a nice little few seconds there though where he shat on his whole video by admitting it is basically undeniable that the FBI engages in false flag activity and could have aided in it or even committed it themselves.
The point....was to notice where he doesn't deny that
it is basically undeniable that the FBI engages in false flag activity and could have aided in it or even committed it themselves.
but he also says that a FB page isn't proof of anything. Something you seem to gloss over and over and over and over.
Did you see that timestamp, bro?
You're just not smart. You think in universals only. You cannot make rational inferences based on particular circumstances where information is limited. Everything is static with you. I feel sorry for you. Really.
and yes, that was me very seriously disregarding your intelligence and creative potential. You are nothing but a thread-search bot working in 1 and 0s.
Aristophanes:ryan dawson has made the most credible 9/11 video out there. I figured you'd know who he was...
9/11 video? What does he make up some kind of conspiracy theory about how the gubberment was somehow involved? What a dumbass. Clayton already said it: They could never kill people and keep it a secret - we know this because they never have. And besides, they don't have the means to stage fake attacks, and they don't even stand to benefit from general panic and calls for clamp downs.
Seems like my initial assessment was only somewhat off: some random conspiracy kook douchebag.
Still pretty close though.
Doesn't that make him a conspiracy kook nut with a tinfoil hat? Wasn't that his point? Isn't he giving sane people a bad name?
but he also says that a FB page isn't proof of anything.
Neither is anything else anyone has said about this (and I'm pretty sure no one has alleged otherwise.) Or any other conspiracy, I suppose for that matter. Obviously this guy didn't prove anything with his 9/11 youtube video, or even my dead grandmother would have heard about it, no? I mean, 9/11, not going how the United States Federal Government said it went down...that's kind of big deal, isn't it?
I'm gonna ask you again because I don't want to be accused to glossing over anything: Which timestamp?
You're just not smart.
Wow. Aristaphanes resorting to insults.
I feel sorry for you. Really.
Gee, ya know, coming from a video game playing, anime watching, dank room dwelling nobody like yourself, that's really saying something. You'd think something like that would hurt my feelings.
Oh wait...
Yeah, Dawson uses "books" and things. you know, when I tried to get you to look at the CIA's guerilla manual? Oh, that shit doesn't matter; it is not a FB timestamp that you desperately cling to so as to not "look wrong." You worry about this because you are insecure and want approval of others, strangers I might add.
Obviously this guy didn't prove anything with his 9/11 youtube video
It is the "research" that is "verifiable" that matters. the video is a conduit. The kid actually gives speeches, much like Ron Paul, at "Universities" where people "learn." but, you can find threads on a forum for new users just like the "search" bar!
As for Clayton, with his "theorizing" he has admitted is all "a priori axiomatic deduction" (doing shame to Mises a great intellectual and researcher) and that he doesn't bother to verify any of his past assertions. And if he doesn't do that then how can he progress in his theorizing? how can he "know" the Vatican is involved in this or that if he cannot or does not verify what he claims? he can't. He is useless and, much like you, a waste of time. he is an old man, past his prime, that talks to college kids about his paranoia...
The point....was to notice where he doesn't deny that Doesn't that make him a conspiracy kook nut with a tinfoil hat? Wasn't that his point?
Doesn't that make him a conspiracy kook nut with a tinfoil hat? Wasn't that his point?
No, his point was to differentiate, not universalize. it is either that "the government stages all attacks" or "the government never does and can't and has no motive to do so"; two UNIVERSALS that act as a false dichotomy. (Tell me more about ad hominem). No one has denied the government has done things like this. there is no reason to think that every terror attack is staged. Especially when no information is available on the particular case... Something you are consciously ignoring in every post; ignoring, so that you can refer observers to my ad hominems (an appeal to emotion in itself) and to, yourself, attack ad hominem I might add.
you see why you are an emotional child? You are a classic case of an egomaniac that made a claim that a FB timestamp is indicative of government conspiracy and now will not own up to a "non universal" (particular) claim that someone makes about it.
You're just not smart. Wow. Aristaphanes resorting to insults. I feel sorry for you. Really. Gee, ya know, coming from a video game playing, anime watching, dank room dwelling nobody like yourself, that's really saying something. You'd think something like that would hurt my feelings.
It did hit you hard because your post was nothing but ad hominems and now false associations*. If I didn't upset you, you'd have stayed calm instead of explode. Good cover with the emoticons ;) you also do not know me very well.
*you are getting really desperate is what that tells me. This is a handle. Say whatever you want about me. These posts to you are for your benefit.
you used the FB timestamp to claim conspiracy, you didn't get a riddle after I gave you several hints, and now you explode when I attempt to tell you that you have a "mindset" that dictates your thinking and prevents certain perspectives from leaking in. Some people call it cognitive dissonance. Some call it selective perception. Some refer to it as a lack of intelligence.
So, I'm done here. Have fun searching, bot.
Aristophanes:Yeah, Dawson uses "books" and things.
Oh "books"! Yeah words on paper are so superior to words on a screen. And video evidence...what rubbish that shit is. I wish I had known everything anyone ever needed to know about 9/11 was all in a book. I totally get it now.
you know, when I tried to get you to look at the CIA's guerilla manual?
Oh you mean that piece of shit you found on the Internetz? Yeah, you're not going to fool me with that nonsense. I know what sort of crap comes from the Internet.
It is the "research" that is "verifiable" that matters. the video is a conduit.
A conduit? To more bullshit on the Internetz? What a waste of time. Nice to know you get all your info from douchebags on youtube though. I guess I should have assumed that's what totally cool spy guys like you mean by "I STUDY THIS". I guess I'm not hip to all your cool spy code language.
The kid actually gives speeches, much like Ron Paul, at "Universities" where people "learn."
SPEECHES?! Like RON PAUL??!! ZOMG WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO BEFORE??
Aristophanes:The difference is stark. One is where the military or intelligence agencies are using war games/military exercises as a cover for moving real-time real-world military assets around sometimes resulting in covert operations covers. The other is when some random police officer gets a report that there is a tip of a bomb, but it is unverified and that someone needs to investigate without raising a panic. Why do you think that is controversial?
So there are military/intelligence exercises and there are police exercises. Sometimes those are used to cover up events or efforts that aren't exercises. Am I missing anything here?
Since police forces are becoming less and less distinguishable from military forces, I say the line between military exercises and police exercises is getting blurrier all the time.
Aristophanes:It is only blurry because of the dumbasses that think that the CIA or w/e are going to bend over and blow up tin can bombs and make fake FB pages. Real false flags are geopolitical events. They are staged to further a serious military, international, or nefarious agenda (not that it cannot be all three or some combination of them) not for gun control or "to take your rights away."
The point of all military strategy and tactics is to minimize (if not wholly eliminate) resistance. All other things being equal, disarming a population severely hampers its ability to resist.
I see that you've once again decided to respond only to part of my post. I consider this to be disingenuous. I repeat my request: how do you know that anything a police force calls a "drill" is always and necessarily "what the public is told when police units have suspicion of an event and need to search, but cannot blend in"? I demand that you either provide your source(s) of this alleged knowledge, or admit that you have none. I will not let up on this.
The question now is could the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion have been actually caused by anti-government people intended to distract from the government Boston Marathon attack? Seeing we're being all cui bonoiy and all.
I know I'm a bit late to the party but my first suspicion was it was an inside job. As has been outlined by Kakugo especially we need to take seriously what the point of "terrorist" attacks are and in whose interest are they. It would seem that terrorist organisations have a goal whatever it may be and they achieve it by creating a climate of fear such that the will of the population is swayed into accepting the groups end.
As such these organisations will likely claim responsibility for the actions to raise awareness of their cause and to make the population weary enough to accept a deal. This is precisely what happened in Northern Ireland with the Marxist IRA.
So we ought to consider any "terrorist" event which a group hasn't claimed responsibilty for as not a true "terrorist" event until a bona fide claim has been filed.
Cui Bono is of paramount importance in these events.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Did it cause terror? If so, who benefits? Not much else to it.
Autolykos:I repeat my request: how do you know that anything a police force calls a "drill" is always and necessarily "what the public is told when police units have suspicion of an event and need to search, but cannot blend in"?
Already tried that, chief.
Autolykos:I will not let up on this.
uh oh, Phany...
Blargg: Did it cause terror? If so, who benefits? Not much else to it.
Pretty much.
John James:Already tried that, chief.
That's fine. I can make my own attempt - and I did.
It would seem that terrorist organisations have a goal whatever it may be and they achieve it by creating a climate of fear such that the will of the population is swayed into accepting the groups end.
Autolykos: John James:Already tried that, chief.That's fine. I can make my own attempt - and I did.
Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but you seemed to be implying that I was somehow either unable or had no right to do the same thing as what you allegedly did beforehand. Clearly I am able to do it, and I think I had the right to do it. Whether you disagree is irrelevant to me, to be quite honest. I just decided to inform you of that. Your mockery also makes no difference. My attitude remains the same.
Marko: It would seem that terrorist organisations have a goal whatever it may be and they achieve it by creating a climate of fear such that the will of the population is swayed into accepting the groups end. That's just one possibility. You read too much into the word "terrorism" itself, and therefore imagine it is all about creating a feeling of terror with you, when actually "terrorist" is the description given to these people by their enemies, specifically the governments they have a feud with and which are engaged in a propaganda war against them and have a stake in drawing them in a certain light. It's not terribly skeptical to imagine terrorists are all about what your 19th century government wanted you to believe they were. And it's never wise to learn about anyone from information from their enemies alone.
It would seem that terrorist organisations have a goal whatever it may be and they achieve it by creating a climate of fear such that the will of the population is swayed into accepting the groups end. That's just one possibility. You read too much into the word "terrorism" itself, and therefore imagine it is all about creating a feeling of terror with you, when actually "terrorist" is the description given to these people by their enemies, specifically the governments they have a feud with and which are engaged in a propaganda war against them and have a stake in drawing them in a certain light. It's not terribly skeptical to imagine terrorists are all about what your 19th century government wanted you to believe they were. And it's never wise to learn about anyone from information from their enemies alone.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that; indeed no group would self describe as terrorist. May be what I meant to say is that acts which are not outright wins of brute force require an ideological element of sorts; to a large extent it is a competing propeganda war. Still the foundation of any investigation is Cui Bono.
Also people need to define their terms better. If by "inside job" you mean a plan of attack which was thoroughly infiltrated by government informants or even agens, and who may have been instrumental in motivating the rest of their co-conspirators into carrying it out and provided them with the means to do it. That is that it was a kind of entrapment, but which then was, for whatever reason, not foiled in time — then I would agree with you there is a significant chance of any apparent terrorist attack being something like this, simply because of how many times we have known it has happened before, or come close to. (Usually driven by a thirst to produce arrests and convictions, and if not neutralized in time ussually because of chronic incompetence.) But if by an "inside job" you mean something which actually originated with or was greenlighted by someone from the Obama administration, because they obviously benefit and what not, then that is something a whole lot more fantastic. So it is important what exactly do you mean by perpetrated by the US government, that it had critical help from somewhere inside the shambolic law-enforcement buerocracy, or that Joe Biden spent nights in a tiny locked room examining plans, the likes of to kill 3 people using a pressure cooker nail bomb?
Still the foundation of any investigation is Cui Bono.
Autolykos:Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but you seemed to be implying that I was somehow either unable or had no right to do the same thing as what you allegedly did beforehand.
You're wrong.
Clearly I am able to do it, and I think I had the right to do it. Whether you disagree is irrelevant to me, to be quite honest. I just decided to inform you of that. Your mockery also makes no difference. My attitude remains the same.
Well I guess we know which one you are then...
John James:You're wrong.
Then what was your point in saying "Already tried that, chief"?
John James:Well I guess we know which one you are then...
Perhaps you'd like to clarify this for me. I'm not a mind-reader, after all.
Autolykos:Then what was your point in saying "Already tried that, chief"?
To point out his bullshit response from earlier and illustrate that you're probably not going to get a satisfactory answer.
You're the badass on the tricycle, of course.
John James:To point out his bullshit response from earlier and illustrate that you're probably not going to get a satisfactory answer.
Okay, fair enough then. The terseness of your statement, plus the use of the term "chief", seemed to convey an undertone of "You're an idiot for trying to do something I already tried to do myself - why can't you just read?!" But I'll happily stand corrected if that was just something I read into what you said.
Marko: Also people need to define their terms better. If by "inside job" you mean a plan of attack which was thoroughly infiltrated by government informants or even agens, and who may have been instrumental in motivating the rest of their co-conspirators into carrying it out and provided them with the means to do it. That is that it was a kind of entrapment, but which then was, for whatever reason, not foiled in time — then I would agree with you there is a significant chance of any apparent terrorist attack being something like this, simply because of how many times we have known it has happened before, or come close to. (Usually driven by a thirst to produce arrests and convictions, and if not neutralized in time ussually because of chronic incompetence.) But if by an "inside job" you mean something which actually originated with or was greenlighted by someone from the Obama administration, because they obviously benefit and what not, then that is something a whole lot more fantastic. So it is important what exactly do you mean by perpetrated by the US government, that it had critical help from somewhere inside the shambolic law-enforcement buerocracy, or that Joe Biden spent nights in a tiny locked room examining plans, the likes of to kill 3 people using a pressure cooker nail bomb?
My suspicion, which I cannot prove, is that most of these terrorist attacks orginate within the CIA or other world security operations rather than the visible government. Their goal being increasing their own power and wealth through greater government funding or by putting competition out of business when they drug deal to finance their operations. The entrapment model as outlined above could well be used but there would be no intention of actually arresting them - just putting enough distance between and the "terrorist" for plausible deniability.
Oh and yes the investigation should be based on who would want to do this and why.
I like how Marko tries to keep his wits about him and everyone else in here wants to throw themselves at the feet of Alex Jones. Good thing everyone here is an existentialist, eh.
If only there was proof of a drill...
"Oh, but we don't need proof! Someone said there was a drill then the FB page timestamp. That is all we need to know. It is bullshit that you would question the conclusion that we already know to be true."
EDIT: *continually bobbing and weaving head around* yo, dawgs, like, the government totally is responsible for everything that you see. Unless you think this you are in on it! If you're in on it you must live to take rights away from strangers. I mean, c'mon, who hasn't tried to take away the rtights of everyone they can be the most deceptive and violent means they can think of?? Right, JJ?? I'm not submlimating anything at all. I just totally want people to be free so I blame the government for everything that way I can use everything the government does to further my ideology that i picked up from this cool radio host in TX!
Aristophanes:I like how Marko tries to keep his wits about him and everyone else in here wants to throw themselves at the feet of Alex Jones.
...unlike super cool secret agent guys like you who get told who to hate on and what to believe by random douchebags on youtube. Absolutely. Those dumbos who follow Alex Jones...they're such naive sheep. They don't understand Alex Jones is just a conspicacy within the conspiracy...they don't realize they're being fooled just like the regular public. They don't realize how cool I am for dumping on the Alex Jones just like they dump on the official government story. I'm so cutting edge. I mean, I'm dumping on the guys who everyone else dumps on for being too extreme...because they're not extreme enough! They're seen as like fringe nutcases, and they're too conformist for me! I'm like at the 64th level of the Matrix by now. Everyone who listens to the wrong guys on youtube just thinks they're cool cuz they think they're like in the know...but I know what they think they know isn't so...because I know what I know is what no one but the most awesome spy guys know. Because I study this. And I know all the best channels on youtube.
blah blah. Search-bot nonesense. you've got absolutely no proof for your views just admit it. But, i did like how you demonize all "books" by referring to the 9/11/ Com. Report. you're so clever fucking useless with your strawmen, false dichotomies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominems.
and I just saw Malachi's post about "innocent until proven guilty." - a commendable position to take among the sea of 'tards here. Even the mods cannot think clearly. how pathetic.
EDIT: Just an edit to provoke the search-bot to continue to research the threads.
Aristophanes:blah blah. Search-bot nonesense. you've got absolutely no proof for your views just admit it.
*shrug* Hey man, if you're not down with the in-the-know, that's cool. I mean if you want to be some naive sheep that's fine with me. I mean I just found some douchebag on youtube last week who told me how RyDaw was some shill working for the CFR...spreading disinfo for the TC under direction of the Illuminati super super elite because the Bilderberg group said it would help the NWO.
I know it's true. Some douchebag on youtube told me this other douchebage was for real. If you don't know how to do research that's fine. I study this.
:EDIT:
Well shit dawg, if you're going to keep editing your posts after they're published, how do you ever expect the full bullshit responses you deserve? Come on man. Be cool. Get down with the cool spy guy program. We don't play dat. Watch somemore youtube and let's compare notes.
In an inside job in this case would mean that there were conspirators within the organization that held the marathon. The insideness could be extended to the cops if the cops were contracted by the organization that held the marathon to provide security and if the cops were the ones that did it. It would not be an inside job if Blackwater/CIA simply sent to two dudes to drop off backpacks with pressure cookers on to the sidewalk.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
oh, no you conviced me that the government is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Everything in the world that happens is due to the government staging it so that it can take rights away. There is no such thing as organic culture; it is all synthetic. There is no inbetween. Either the government did it or it didn't happen.
Aristophanes: Even the mods cannot think clearly. how pathetic.
Even the mods cannot think clearly. how pathetic.
I'll include you in that if you think that the FB page timestamp is evidence of government planning and staged terror as most of this thread does.
Also,
Why do any of those constraints apply? Are those the only scenarios in which you think inside job is possible? It can go down no other ways? Thereare no other combinations of "ifs, coulds, woulds" that could produce that result. please think clearly.
Me, Marko, and Malachi are the only ones who seem to think that we need "evidence" before we start condemning. Most people in this thread think like police; no evidence is necessary if enough people's perception lies a certain way. JJ is so thouroughly embarrassed that he got more mad over night, haha. Read my posts specifically for the parts that JJ doesn't take issue with because they are what are important, not his diversions and appeals to emotion or, in these last few posts of his, idiocy.
JJ, you literally, universally wrote off "books" and "research" because the 9/11 Com. Report. You cannot believe yourself what you are saying, do you? In real life do you think that books and research are irrelevant since they can be used as propaganda?
Go read my comments about JJ's universal thinking. 1s and 0s, bot boy. 1s and 0s.