weedguru_animal wrote:
I respect many americans...but seriously...anyone who believes ANYTHING that Bush told them, including his reasoning behind invading afghanistan and Iraq, and is now rejoicing at Bin Laden's 'death', after believing he was responsible for 9/11...is...a fucking moron. and a traitor to their own fucking flag and constitution.
For someone who values language and the use of words, you can sometimes be quite extreme in your assertions! While it's obvious that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than the attacks of September 11th, I for one, certainly believe that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks themselves. I have done enough research myself and have just taken a University level course on terrorism, in which I got my only ever grade of A+. Sure, western educational systems will teach a lot of what has appeared in the mainstream media, but it also allows you to research a topic to a great extent. Al Qaeda is a worldwide terrorist group, and at the time of the events, Bin Laden was their mastermind. They are a terrorist group who has clear intentions of fighting a "holy way" against the WEST. Who is it that you think orchestrated the events of September 11th??
Bias in thought works both ways, and specifically on these boards it seems as though anything the USA does is automatically put into question and disregarded. Viewing Bin Laden's death with skepticism is smart. Naming those who believe he was responsible for 9/11 and therefore are happy to see he has been killed moronic is... rather hypocritical. As was stated it has only been approximately 48 hours since his death. In time, I am sure there will be some sort of clear evidence shown to the public. When this happens, I sure hope you revisit this thread. The USA's priority at this point in time is to remain vigilent and avoid enticing Al Qaeda and other groups from attacking them... not to please the general public by showing them evidence and footage of the attack.
I saw on TV today, this man lost his son, his son died...
So he had him cremated, took his ashes, and then made it into a Diamond ring...
Now he watches his son shine every day.
I just thought about that, while I sit here ashing in this ashtray...
not just extreme, chris but brimming with more volatility than Reason. Today, in a sober state, I would gladly substitute :
'a fucking moron. and a traitor to their own fucking flag and constitution'
for something like..
'unlikely to be a person I would enjoy sharing my time with'.
my emotions these last 16 hours have been unbearably sad, due to the departure back to england of my dead mother goose, who has been staying here for the last month. it pains me very deeply to see her cry and wail as she has to say goodbye yet again...as well as pains me to say goodbye. Its love heading back to where my love centres all exist, bar one, which is in my Oscar here next to me, barking wildly at a plane flying overhead, then settling back down with a grumble, assuming it was his barks which sent it away...anyway, when i am filled with such intense emotions of an unwanted nature, i sometimes release them in the wrong way, towards the wrong people. Which is what I was doing with that line you quoted. I am indeed very interested in the bin laden saga, and will try to stick to facts, keeping my opinions more measured...mainly so that I give myself the opportunity to learn more and alter my opinions accordingly if need be, and also, encourage others to debate with me.
now, after explaining myself, and excusing myself...i will continue the debate.
Studying 'terrorism' in the country which a massive % of the world sees as, by far, the largest exporter of global terrorism, and using such experience to add weight to an opinion defending an attack on the american government (by me), is counterintuitive and for an man educated on logic, rather hypocritical. Its far too heavyhanded for me to suggest that everything taught about terrorism, by a major exporter of terrorism, will be painting that country in a completely disloyal manner. But its equally ridiculous to suggest that the american government either turns a blind eye to what their students are taught, has no control over what their students are taught, or actually wants their public to know of the atrocities committed regularly with their tax funds. The truth of the matter, lies somewhere between those extremes...
When I refer to the american government as the largest exporter of terrorism, i am not spouting conspiracy theories, or paraphrasing Alex Jones, I am basing such an assertion purely, solely, on facts. It makes zero sense for the US government to allow to be taught in their country, the facts behind their macabre neo imperialism of the last few decades. That would cause a revolt. Again, this is plain logic. Not in the slightest overly passionate wailing or ranting. Every major powerhouse civilization follows this logic. The romans are a decent example. If they crushed a country, a people, they often left no trace of them whatsoever, destroying, in the process of crushing the flesh and bones, all history that their foes ever existed...then as they ruled so much of the known world, they literally created historical records, to suit their own causes. You are far from ignorant, and so I need not repeat myself yet again on this matter. which I have a tendency to fall into doing, due to the poet instinct perhaps. Geniuses say something important, very succintly. Poets say something important, very verbosely, very convoluted. Unfortunately, whether I can produce poetry of a fine calibre or not, I fall into their camp.
As I stated in my above post, I admit, that I worded my assertion far too guided by horribly sad and heavy emotions, than Reason. But other than the line you rightly quoted as...a little over the top, my core stance on this matter remains the same.
It makes perfect sense for the american education system to paint the government's enemies as worthy enemies. And the opposite makes no sense whatsoever, neither does allowing teachers to students of all ages, teach personal opinion, rather than what they are paid to teach. This is easier than most people think to employ. The western media is a prime example...The BBC for example, a vast and longstanding global media institution, paid for by the english taxpayers, does exactly the same thing. I was watching Raggy Omar recently, explain, with his head bowed a little, how the pulling down of the Saddam statue scene in Iraq, was completely fraudulent. His bosses gathered a few iraqis, likely paid them, to stand around and cheer as the rope was strung around the concrete head, and the statue pulled to the floor...an iconic sign of glory, success, liberation??? well...not in the slightest. If the BBC, whose income is drawn from the public, is capable of such deception, on such important matters, it doesn't take Chomsky, to suggest that the governments are capable of much much worse deception. Fox news is, to all europeans, so obviously movie news, so obviously steered by the owners...but the BBC has a reputation for independent of direction from above reportage. Yet they do exactly the same thing as Fox. In some ways its a worse crime for the BBC, because Fox is so blatantly awful, that anyone who takes their 'news' as truth, is...hohohohohooh!...unlikely to be someone I would enjoy sharing my time with. Yet the BBC presents itself as objective, independent, real. Their crime is indeed far worse.
Osama was clearly sitting in his compound bored as fuck playing CALL OF DUTY on the playstation network...
What happens next? you guessed it... the Playstation Network gets hacked and drops out... Osama you dumb fucker..
how did you not know what was happening? Bush was the adolescent on the other end of the fibre optic cable calling you a nazi arab bastard when it went down.
BOOM... now its COD for real..... Ah the beauty of playing games over the internet..
SToNeR ChRiS wrote:For someone who values language and the use of words, you can sometimes be quite extreme in your assertions! While it's obvious that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than the attacks of September 11th, I for one, certainly believe that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks themselves. I have done enough research myself and have just taken a University level course on terrorism, in which I got my only ever grade of A+. Sure, western educational systems will teach a lot of what has appeared in the mainstream media, but it also allows you to research a topic to a great extent. Al Qaeda is a worldwide terrorist group, and at the time of the events, Bin Laden was their mastermind. They are a terrorist group who has clear intentions of fighting a "holy way" against the WEST. Who is it that you think orchestrated the events of September 11th??
Could you share any other knowledge from your university course? Because that is very, very vague.
Bin Laden was indeed a terrorist who vowed to fight the west to the death for their "blasphemic" actions when they entered Saudi Arabia a long time ago. That's the only 'evidence' you can acquire which leads in the direction of Osama Bin laden orchestrating these attacks. There is so much evidence pointing towards 'other key figures' that i deem it impossible to say that Bin Laden was in control of this.
Also...
SToNeR ChRiS wrote: As was stated it has only been approximately 48 hours since his death. In time, I am sure there will be some sort of clear evidence shown to the public.
Considering the American governments track record, how likely is this?
Death is the only certainty. EVERYTHING else is variable.
sugarstalker wrote:why only in the United states? have not other countries been the target for terrorists? the UK tube, and bomb in Madrid, and the suicide bombing in Moscow, do they not count?
you didn't see the US taking him either, until they finaly got him. how can you be so sure that NATO was not involved in his capture? that is quite arrogant of you, in my opinion.
sugarstalker wrote:you didn't see the US taking him either, until they finaly got him. how can you be so sure that NATO was not involved in his capture? that is quite arrogant of you, in my opinion.
CNN clearly said it was a group of elite US Navy Seals....duh. Americans went in, Americans fired the shots, Americans kicked his ass overboard.
So they had the "most wanted man in the world" in their sights, the man who said he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the LEADER OF AL-QAEDA, and they chose to shoot him in the head? Wouldn't they want to ask this man a few questions?
And first they said he had a weapon and was firing back, now they've changed it to "oh he was actually unnarmed and was using a woman as a shield" then they said "we shot the woman dead" then they said "oh no we didnt lol, we shot her in the leg!" So first he was armed, then he was unarmed, then the story keeps changing, its like a pathological liar is telling you a story... Just seems a bit fishy to me. And the American government is notorious for lying...So something just doesn't add up for me. I'm not making any assumptions atm, but when you consider everything I've just said...Seems a bit fishy, like we aren't being told the whole truth.
AND why the fuck did they just dump the body in the sea? "According to muslim traditions" well, no, muslim burial 'tradition' is that if you are killed at sea, you have to be buried at sea..Something along those lines...So why the fuck are they saying they did it because muslim traditions? Just think for a minute...The whole thing seems sketchy and bullshitty.
I concur. Then there was talk about how they wouldn't release the photo/video because it was too gruesome with a bullet wound in his left eye showing skull and brains. And then there was a leak of such a photo, which was proven to be a fake. Maybe the fake photo was released after they mentioned how he died, or maybe it was the photo they were hoping everyone would buy. Who knows at this point?
I personally recommend checking oneself for OCD at least once every 5 minutes.
Ikku wrote:Danimal, your view of our government and society is interesting and perhaps would have held true in one day and age. But this is the free information era, and while of course not all information is free, we American citizens at least have access to the same information you do. The idea that the government can control what is taught in universities is laughable. Universities are where you will find the most radical and dangerous thinkers, both students and faculty. And of course there's the internet, anything you can find out, I can find out, and with stuff like Wikileaks, more and more information is getting out there. They could always shut off our internet access but they would never get away with that, it's too crucial to the way business operates now, plus people would get pissed and the American people have guns.
I can tell I'm slightly high and distracted by the annoying as fuck drilling my upstairs neighbor has been doing for what seems like the past several hours...my post seems rambling.
Ikku, mate...whose words on this forum more often than not entice me to decour them thoroughly...Its wrong to assume yourself, as a standard citizen of your country. When you say 'have the same access to information' its also misleading. Because do you truly believe that ALL americans not only have the internet, but also, both awareness of where to peek for truth, and also, the inclination to question what they are spoon fed by the mainstream media???? Countless documentariues I have seen, countless editorials I have read, all point to dangerously massive masses of uneducated people in America. Which, to my reckoning of the american government, has been socially engineered. As, however you view your government, as an intelligent man, i am near to certain that you cannot contest, that such a regime persists, requires in order to persist, relies upon, effects society to make sure such masses exist, massive amounts of people so uneducated, that they believe whatever they are told...
I do not believe for a second, that my ideas are antiquated. as they have been formed through my awareness of the NOW and RECENT past.
And as I stated in my previous effort...i believe the truth lies somewhere between total control over education and zero control over education. Its extremely naive to believe that a regime in control of a country shows zero interest in what the seeds of that society are taught. Leading on from that...its even more naive to believe that a regime controlling a country, would allow ANY truth which paints them in a bad light, to be taught to the seeds of the society that they control.
SToNeR ChRiS wrote:For someone who values language and the use of words, you can sometimes be quite extreme in your assertions! While it's obvious that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than the attacks of September 11th, I for one, certainly believe that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks themselves. I have done enough research myself and have just taken a University level course on terrorism, in which I got my only ever grade of A+. Sure, western educational systems will teach a lot of what has appeared in the mainstream media, but it also allows you to research a topic to a great extent. Al Qaeda is a worldwide terrorist group, and at the time of the events, Bin Laden was their mastermind. They are a terrorist group who has clear intentions of fighting a "holy way" against the WEST. Who is it that you think orchestrated the events of September 11th??
Could you share any other knowledge from your university course? Because that is very, very vague.
Bin Laden was indeed a terrorist who vowed to fight the west to the death for their "blasphemic" actions when they entered Saudi Arabia a long time ago. That's the only 'evidence' you can acquire which leads in the direction of Osama Bin laden orchestrating these attacks. There is so much evidence pointing towards 'other key figures' that i deem it impossible to say that Bin Laden was in control of this.
Also...
SToNeR ChRiS wrote: As was stated it has only been approximately 48 hours since his death. In time, I am sure there will be some sort of clear evidence shown to the public.
Considering the American governments track record, how likely is this?
We can all demonstrate points both for conspiracy theories as well as trying to prove that Al Qaeda and in turn Bin Laden were responsible for the acts of September 11th. There's a myriad of information out there but if you want me to hand pick a point to back up my belief that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, there is certainly one fact that stands out...
Prior to September 9th, 2001, only two days before the attacks of 9/11, Afganistan had never experienced one single suicide bombing. On this day, Al Qaeda sent two suicide bombers to kill the top leader of the more legitimate power, the Northern Alliance's Ahmad Shah Massoud. After killing the leader, the Taliban and Al Qaeda gained a lot of influence in the country without fear of any repercussions. Must I reiterate that this was only TWO DAYS prior to September 11th?... not to mention the country's FIRST SUICIDE BOMBING EVER? Two days later, the events of September 11th took place. After a certain amount of time, things start to add up. Should I need to bring up more points feel free to ask... I just can't be bothered writing a novel on the topic right now. As for Bin Laden, he was the leader of Al Qaeda at the time... whether it was simply an inspirational leader, a funding leader or whatever type of leader... he was their leader.
Finally, there was talk about Bin Laden having never admitted to being responsible for the attacks.
Please, do raise more points as i don't deem this substantial at all. You merely stated something which would be held in a court of law as coincidence. Without any valid connection, that's all it is. And seeing as it was never proven that Al-Quaeda were involved, there is no valid connection.
At the end of the day, every piece of evidence America held up turned out to be a crock of shit. Then when it was all shot down, they closed the inquiry.
Death is the only certainty. EVERYTHING else is variable.
sugarstalker wrote:you didn't see the US taking him either, until they finaly got him. how can you be so sure that NATO was not involved in his capture? that is quite arrogant of you, in my opinion.
CNN clearly said it was a group of elite US Navy Seals....duh. Americans went in, Americans fired the shots, Americans kicked his ass overboard.
right right, because in military operations, that's all that happens.. there is no gathering of information, no planning of action, nothing prior to just barging into a house, hoping there are people believed to be hostile.
I too have seen documentaries and videos online demonstrating the massive amounts of uneducated people in America. It's not really a fair point though, and my experience living in America for 20 years doesn't support it. I'm sure in any country, you could find plenty of mindless twits to fill a documentary with. That doesn't say anything statistically about the American people. Whenever there's some data about some high percentage of Americans being unable to find Iraq on a map for instance, that's just data from some arbitrary survey, it's not rigorous statistical data screened for sampling bias. There are plenty of half wits living in the boonies and a portion of them have crept into our cities, but my experience with most people is nothing like what such surveys would suggest.
And internet access...technically almost 100% of Americans should have internet access, at least at public libraries. Three out of four households have internet access. While a lot of them aren't using it regularly or for news, but as the baby boomers are growing old and younger generations are taking the forefront, this is changing. And when some major story hits Wikileaks for example, the major news media outlets are compelled to report it, or else they will lose out in the market because other news stations will beat them to the story and people will turn to the outlets doing the most reporting. Capitalism + free information = very high chance of the public receiving that information because media outlets will compete to give people the most accurate and complete information.
Also, Fire Inside, you didn't address the fact that Osama took credit for the attacks. I'm not 100% sure that he did, but there is definitely more evidence that he did than you're letting on.
I personally recommend checking oneself for OCD at least once every 5 minutes.
