Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

With people this stupid who needs enemies...

stevegmu said:
Sadly, yes.
Click to expand...

Are you engaging in the same behavior that you so often criticize others for supposedly doing? Of course you are!

I will keep this post in mind the next time you accuse anybody in PRSI of having an anti-American agenda just because they post something negative about the US. It doesn't surprise me at all that you have an anti-French attitude, and will gladly show it when the opinion of one French actress is posted.
 
Gelfin said:
Okay, traditionally this is the case. The Iraq misadventure was a colossal cockup in so many ways, not least of which was subversion of the normal intelligence and strategic process so analysis no longer informed policy, but instead was dictated by it. One can only hope that this disaster will at least serve as a reminder to future executives why it is a bad idea for the President to tell intelligence people what he wants them to find.
Click to expand...
Well, in all honesty though, thats in some ways how 9/11 was allowed to happen. People in the gov't CIA knew something was happening, but people ignored it. (This is isn't a conspiracy, its very well known that warning signs were ignored.) This is a systemic problem IMO of this gov't, and wasn't helped with the creation "homeland security." I mean, why all the restrictions on airflight, yet U.S's borders to the north and south are by comparison, wide open.....
 
Fukui said:
Well, in all honesty though, thats in some ways how 9/11 was allowed to happen. People in the gov't CIA knew something was happening, but people ignored it. (This is isn't a conspiracy, its very well known that warning signs were ignored.) This is a systemic problem IMO of this gov't, and wasn't helped with the creation "homeland security." I mean, why all the restrictions on airflight, yet U.S's borders to the north and south are by comparison, wide open.....
Click to expand...

To be fair though, the CIA has a very finite ceiling on what it can and can not do. As much as we can say in hindsight that there was some forewarning, the CIA likely had to deal with dozens of what would be considered similar-level threats from all over the globe. It was probably given the same amount of investigation and face time as all those other threats were, this one just happened to be more dire than most.

Having said that, it's just more evidence of a cover-up existing to hide what a monumental cock-up this was, and not conspiratorial in nature.

Your avatar is creeping me out.
 
it5five said:
Are you engaging in the same behavior that you so often criticize others for supposedly doing? Of course you are!

I will keep this post in mind the next time you accuse anybody in PRSI of having an anti-American agenda just because they post something negative about the US. It doesn't surprise me at all that you have an anti-French attitude, and will gladly show it when the opinion of one French actress is posted.
Click to expand...
You can try, but I think you're being ignored too. ;)

Iscariot said:
To be fair though, the CIA has a very finite ceiling on what it can and can not do.
Click to expand...
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" was on Condi Rice's desk and she ignored it, as did the rest of them despite Clarke saying it was imminent.

But yeah, I go with incompetence over conspiracy too.
 
Henri Gaudier said:
Until the very last statement there's nothing wrong with what she says. There are many inconsistencies in the official story and it is healthy to question. If you look at everything that has come out, both fully and partially through the Freedom of Information Acts etc about mind control experiments or American plans to blow up an air line, blame Cuba, in order to create a reason to invade etc ... well all of these things were denied at the time. Some at the time would have questioned the veracity of the official line and the media would of portrayed them as insane or trouble causers etc but years later it's found to be all true! And is it that the papers and the media at the time were hoodwinked or were they part of the hoodwinking?
Click to expand...


I give her credit for stating a conspiracy theory I'd never heard before. The idea that it cost less to demolish the towers than to modernize them is even more bonkers than I expected. Unfortunately, you can't give credence to the secret criminal conspiracy idea based on the fact that there have been other conspiracies in the past. That's an argument in favor of being skeptical, not for believing crazy theories.


Henri Gaudier said:
Former defence advisor to 2 American presidents, Zbigniew Brzezinski states in his book "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," 1997.-

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... In that context, how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

She, as a European has every right to be concerned and critical of a country that advocates "dominating" the "prize of Eurasia."
Click to expand...


This is how all academics and foreign policy analysts write. Someone in France is discussing how to maintain their hegemony as we speak. And in the UK. And in China. And in other countries. Global politics demands that every country be constantly thinking about how to get the upper hand. That's not a sign of a conspiracy, it's a sign that people are rational (albeit often unsuccessful) policymakers.


Henri Gaudier said:
Specifically back to 9/11 - in the Project for the New American Century it states “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour."

This was written 1 year before the pre-emptive attacks on the US. It's worth a puzzle over at least and I'd suggest a bit more.
Click to expand...


There are always people out there contemplating how a catastrophic event would change people's worldview. If a meteor struck the earth, if a nuclear bomb destroyed a major city, if hackers paralyzed the telecommunications networks. All of these things are on people's minds. It's not necessarily suspicious if one of them actually does happen.


Henri Gaudier said:
Anyway, there's too much to cover in the whole 9/11 Zionist war hawk debate but I think she, struggling in a second language, did okay until the daffy ending.
Click to expand...

I think she knew exactly what she was saying. People just like conspiracy theories.

As for "9/11 Zionists", I'm sure there are some Islamic fundamentalists that would love to have you over for dinner.
 
There's a world of difference between being a conspiracy nutcase and being able to entertain the possibility of conspiracies. I find them fascinating. You'd have to be a complete idiot to buy what the mainstream corporate owned news is selling.

What Cecily said about the Fed is largely fact. I just don't understand what could be more compelling than facts. People need to read up. Are they engaged in a global plan to enslave the world? Hell, probably. Connect the dots... you can type money into a computer and it exists. The specifics are of course anyone's guess.. but all roads inevitably lead to control. Once you have infinite monetary resources there is no other path and there is no way that path will be ignored. Check out Freedom to Facism.

If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility you're being duped it's only matter of time until you are regardless of what may be the case now.


As for the thread title - wow talk about setting oneself up. Extremism is extremism. Outright mockery of one end from the other is just idiocy. Reasonable paranoia is healthy. It's called situational awareness.
 
Eric Piercey said:
Reasonable paranoia is healthy. It's called situational awareness.
Click to expand...

Umm, not to burst your bubble, but "reasonable paranoia" is an oxymoron. Basically, paranoia is the distrust of others, society, a government that is not based on facts; whereas, reasonable means logical or rational, basically based on tangible facts. You can't use the phrase "reasonable paranoia" because it makes you look silly. You can say, people should have a reasonable amount of paranoia, or you can say that it is not unreasonable for people to be paranoid, but you cannot say "reasonable paranoia".
 
Gelfin said:
Right now there is somebody in Washington D.C. who is being paid real taxpayer dollars to come up with a contingency plan in the event we decide to invade Canada, just as there is someone in Ottowa making contingency plans for military action against the United States. There is no reason to believe that such a preposterous thing would ever happen, but the thinking is that if you have dispassionately thought through all such scenarios, no matter how preposterous they individually seem, the one in a million of them that actually comes to pass will not take us completely by surprise.
Click to expand...
It's "Ottawa." And we don't have a military.
 
solvs said:
You can try, but I think you're being ignored too. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely positive I'm on his ignore list; he told me himself that he was putting me on it. My post was more for other PRSI-ers who made their way to Current Events/the inevitable move of this thread to PRSI.
 
Counterfit said:
Facts according to who? We can't just take your word for it.
Click to expand...

The facts surrounding the coming into being of the US Federal Reserve as well as the fact that it's privately owned is well documented. The fact that the USD is fiat is also well documented. The US Federal Reserve is, not part of the US Government. These are the kind of facts I'm talking about. Simple, plain as the nose on your face facts that many Americans just don't know or care about. I'm not stating any conspiracies as facts.. God I won't make it that easy for you. My point was... you hand a group (any group) basically infinite resources and there's bound to be some corruption. That's what makes America special... that there are checks and balances, that people get voted in. Who's watching all the money though?
 
Eric Piercey said:
The facts surrounding the coming into being of the US Federal Reserve as well as the fact that it's privately owned is well documented. ...The US Federal Reserve is, not part of the US Government. These are the kind of facts I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Actually the Federal Reserve system is part of the US government. It's intended to be independent and financially self-sufficient from the three branches of government because it relies on private and public funds to operate. It exists by federal statute, and Congress and the president can pass laws anytime to change how the Fed is run.

Now, one might argue that the Federal Reserve is so heavily influenced by private bankers and investors that it isn't independent at all and might as well be a private institution. But it is not privately owned.
 
Aloofman - no I don't believe the demolition idea either but I was defending the idea that it's incorrect to say she's stupid as the original poster inferred. It's a bastard getting out exactly what you mean sometimes in a second language. Equally, how sincere was it and what kind of rag is the paper reporting? To traduce seems to be a matter of course today.

As for foreign policy advisers - maybe - but he's had the ear of plenty of Presidents and only America has shown that it is willing to practice this kind of statesmanship lately.

As for the Islamic Fundamentalist remark - grow up. I have no camaraderie with religious fundamentalists of any sort. The war on Afghanistan & Iraq is however a war created by Christians and Jews. Not all clearly, not even 0.000001%, but nevertheless, many of the prime movers were born again Christians - Bush & Blair - or Jewish/Zionists. Richard Perle, chief architect of the war and the then chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, also adviser to Binyamin Netanyahu, was the principal author of a document called Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, he wrote that Saddam would have to be destroyed, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe. There are many more - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Tenet, Dov Zackheim, Libby, Feith, Leon "Bud" Edney, JINSA, Abrahams, Cohen Deutch etc. etc.

Now before you start your knee jerk name calling - These men do not represent the views of all who share their ancestry or religious beliefs. I am not anti semitic. But these men did connive to bring war for a political reason and it wasn't the truth.
 
Henri Gaudier said:
Aloofman - no I don't believe the demolition idea either but I was defending the idea that it's incorrect to say she's stupid as the original poster inferred. It's a bastard getting out exactly what you mean sometimes in a second language. Equally, how sincere was it and what kind of rag is the paper reporting? To traduce seems to be a matter of course today.
Click to expand...

Who knows? People believe a lot of crazy things and the media likes to report it when famous ones say it out loud.

Henri Gaudier said:
As for foreign policy advisers - maybe - but he's had the ear of plenty of Presidents and only America has shown that it is willing to practice this kind of statesmanship lately.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the U.S., as the country that's throwing it's military weight around lately, is only the most obvious about it. Every country engages in these games, usually in less blatant ways. Maybe the real problem is that the US government has forgotten how to be subtle about it. U.S. foreign policy also gets far more attention around the world (understandably) than other countries' do because it affects so many others.

Henri Gaudier said:
As for the Islamic Fundamentalist remark - grow up. I have no camaraderie with religious fundamentalists of any sort. The war on Afghanistan & Iraq is however a war created by Christians and Jews. Not all clearly, not even 0.000001%, but nevertheless, many of the prime movers were born again Christians - Bush & Blair - or Jewish/Zionists....

Now before you start your knee jerk name calling - These men do not represent the views of all who share their ancestry or religious beliefs. I am not anti semitic. But these men did connive to bring war for a political reason and it wasn't the truth.
Click to expand...

I was being somewhat facetious and should have elaborated. With some exceptions, when most people say "Zionist" these days, they're referring to some sinister Jewish cabal that's trying to rule the world. It's how anti-Semites often refer to Jews. My flip remark was that by referring to "Zionist" schemes, you're using a term that Islamic fundamentalists use.
 
Yes, I've heard of it but the "You may be on to something" line suggests something else.

"We all know, the Neo-Con movement was started by Jews..."

The two people I've heard as the founding fathers of the NC movement were Kristol and Podhoretz.

The Times (UK) "Norman Podhoretz is the Godfather of the NeoCon movement"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece

Mr Podhoretz is Jewish, studied Jewish theology and has received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University.

Can't be bothered with Kristol.

I repeat ... I'm not an anti-semite but it is I believe irrefutable that some Jews have an agenda that they actively pursue. Of course they do. The question is whether you approve and of course, if you're an idiot, you may think Mr Goldberg the hifi repair man is in on it too! I don't!
 
Henri Gaudier said:
but it is I believe irrefutable that some Jews have an agenda that they actively pursue. Of course they do.
Click to expand...

I would posit that at least 3 members of any definable characteristic (sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation or lack thereof, social beliefs (anarchy, socialism, etc.)) have an agenda they are actively pursuing. So I guess that means yes, there at least 3 people pursuing the "gay agenda" so decried by, er, whoever it is that decries it (religious-right neo-cons?).
 
I see what you are saying but it's a little disingenuous to draw this analogy. The death and sorrow this particular clique orchestrates for the betterment of Israel and the Arms/ Oil combine is of epic proportions played out on a world stage.

I'm not interpreting their intent through frustrated nazi goggles; it's spelled out for you when you read anything from AIPAC or JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and others. Factor in, Zionist sympathisers/Born Again end timers and the equation is much darker and more terrifying than three radical "puffs" dreaming of a breeder free world or whatever dark intent you hypothetically ascribe to the gay agenda to make your analogy partially work.

Lots of Americans are blind and deaf to this viewpoint because of some indecipherable umbilical chord between America and Israel. However, if the acts, words and intents stayed the same but the characters changed to Arabian ones - what a difference that would make to the public perception of the Neo Con credo.
 
Iscariot said:
To be fair though, the CIA has a very finite ceiling on what it can and can not do. As much as we can say in hindsight that there was some forewarning, the CIA likely had to deal with dozens of what would be considered similar-level threats from all over the globe. It was probably given the same amount of investigation and face time as all those other threats were, this one just happened to be more dire than most.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the CIA in this case. It was the New York field office of the FBI, mostly due to internal political games that led them to marginalize agents, leave well-connected informants to swing and ignore hard evidence from other field offices. I really do think Peter Lance's 1000 Years for Revenge should be required reading here. Indeed there was no conspiracy, but there were more concrete warning signs than vague "chatter." There is every reason to believe this should have been caught, and it was human incompetence that prevented that.

Increased surveillance would not have prevented 9/11. Monitoring every phone call and every e-mail would not have. Tighter immigration policies would not have; nor would tighter checkpoint security at Logan Int'l. Better communication between agencies might have been useful, but would not have prevented the attack. The people with the power to stop this had all the information they needed to stop this plot in plenty of time to do something about it, and they failed, primarily due to some high-ranking people attending more to preening their careers than doing their jobs.

Mr_Brightside_@ said:
It's "Ottawa." And we don't have a military.
Click to expand...

1. Sorry for the misspelling. At least I didn't say Toronto.
2. Say what? You don't have a large standing army, but you do have a volunteer military force, and I assure you your country has defense advisors just like any other, and that those advisors suggest things that would sound ludicrous to the ordinary citizen, which was the point to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back