j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Accepting the official version despite the obvious red-herrings within mere days of a public announcement like last weekend's is plain bullshit IMO. First, the story is so weird and was evolving so fast at the beginning of the week that there was no telling which way it would go. Second, instead of pointing the finger at skeptics (justifiably skeptical considering our recent and past history), you should validate reasonable skepticism, which isn't in any way mutually exclusive with addressing oppression ...which more than insuates that there is some complex problem to be solved that skeptical reivew will unveil. the official version changed considerably and inexplicably within ~4 days and no direct evidence was provided. Skepticism was the proper course of action. Ignoring the mountain of evidence to the effect the public is manipulated for warmongering and the inexplicable backtracking on the version of events isn't an application of Occam's razor, it's blatant jingoism. No - a much more simple explanation will do. The overall tone of the above, as the Chomsky quote you provided - uses vagery to try and cast doubt on what appears to be a simple act false. The probability the pentagon is lying to us about OBL and Afghanistan is significant, and Chomsky cites the FBI director about the lack of evidence that would stand in a court of law. Whether some other Bush admin agency thinks differently doesn't change any of it, especially considering Bush's record. - OBL got shot in the head - the guy is dead - without laying out any reasonable evidence than the usual hand waving. Logic doesn work that way dude. Seriously. logic and Occam's razor should tell you that no body means no direct evidence, and that someone unarmed shot twice in the head was most likely executed. Also - I did not mention Ocman's Razor, which, if you are familar with the concept, is often misapplied to logic sequencing. I suggest you study up. how are the readings of wikipedia going? making progress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 it is not a leap in logic, it's a wrong application of Occam's. if it wasn't covered in "contact" than i'm out of my element Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 ..or more recetly: logic says the perfect crime is to make the body disappear, as everyone knows but rob apparently. Now if either of you can quote me citing Occamn's Razor I'm ready. If you cut and paste anything I wrote then you don't undersand the nuances of the concept. ? dude, you aren't making any sense whatsoever. Citing me, then claiming there is something wrong with what I said without ever saying what is wrong isn't going to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think I'll step out of the Chuck E. Cheese pop-up theater of the abusrd now. Thank you for your illustrative comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think I'll step out of the Chuck E. Cheese pop-up theater of the abusrd now. Thank you for your illustrative comments. Your problem was thinking you could hold a rational, logical conversation with the mentally ill. :-) No loss leaving, even the pizza at Chuck E. Cheese sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think I'll step out of the Chuck E. Cheese pop-up theater of the abusrd now. Thank you for your illustrative comments. More evasive bullshit from you. You are a total disgrace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 remove the peripherals, and what is this argument about again? whether or not bin laden was assasinated? whether we should unequivocally trust the guv's narrative? whether or not the guv is capable of subterfuge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think I'll step out of the Chuck E. Cheese pop-up theater of the abusrd now. Thank you for your illustrative comments. Your problem was thinking you could hold a rational, logical conversation with the mentally ill. :-) You voted for Bush and you are calling someone else mentally ill? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Did General Caldwell Point his Psy-Ops Team at POTUS? Behind the Pentagon’s Propaganda Plan Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators The Return of PSYOPS Iraq and the Media bump! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 But dear sir, what relevance could the following have on the current situation! In early 2002, the New York Times (2/19/02) reported that the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) was "developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations" in an effort "to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries." That story got widespread attention, and the Pentagon announced that the office would be eliminated. But considerably less media attention was paid when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later said that, while the OSI had been closed, its mission would be taken up by other agencies (FAIR Media Advisory, 11/27/02). As Rumsfeld put it, "I went down that next day and said 'Fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine--I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done, and I have." So the revelation that an OSI-style disinformation campaign does still exist should not come as a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 remove the peripherals, and what is this argument about again? whether or not bin laden was assasinated? whether we should unequivocally trust the guv's narrative? whether or not the guv is capable of subterfuge? seems about right to me, and the only real argument is on the first question, if that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 bin laden's son issues statement. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 seems about right to me, and the only real argument is on the first question, if that? yeah i think there is a real issue with the first question. first it was reported he had an ak 47, then his wife was armed, then no one was armed? truthfully, i haven't been following the story all that closely, but it seems there have been inconcistencies with the official narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloRida Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 i broadcast nationwide and have an army of editors and proof-readers to make sure there is no typos or misspoken words? It's true. Are childrens is learning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I wish, but it appears manyy forgot everything before and including the Wikileaks releases. Multitasking brats with the attention span and the memory of a goldfish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 But dear sir, what relevance could the following have on the current situation! In early 2002, the New York Times (2/19/02) reported that the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) was "developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations" in an effort "to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries." That story got widespread attention, and the Pentagon announced that the office would be eliminated. But considerably less media attention was paid when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later said that, while the OSI had been closed, its mission would be taken up by other agencies (FAIR Media Advisory, 11/27/02). As Rumsfeld put it, "I went down that next day and said 'Fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine--I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done, and I have." So the revelation that an OSI-style disinformation campaign does still exist should not come as a surprise. Don't worry some will swear to you that only the furriners are targeted. The one I thought was priceless was the following: Shortly before the launch of the "war on terror," an unnamed Pentagon war planner seemed to warn journalists everywhere when he told Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz (9/24/01): "This is the most information-intensive war you can imagine... We're going to lie about things." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 truthfully, i haven't been following the story all that closely, but it seems there have been inconcistencies with the official narrative. 7 Deceptions About Bin Laden's Killing Pushed by the Obama Administration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 OBL got shot in the head - the guy is dead - without laying out any reasonable evidence than the usual hand waving. some kind of fruedian slip going on here, LOLZ!!! So Jim, or any of the others on this thread who believe the Orwell TV. Please give us a link to the evidence that proves that Osama was killed by the seals in Abbottabad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Yeah, I mean, its not like we have an admission if guilt or anything. Oh, wait.... Please give us a link to the admission of guilt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 seems about right to me, and the only real argument is on the first question, if that? yeah i think there is a real issue with the first question. first it was reported he had an ak 47, then his wife was armed, then no one was armed? truthfully, i haven't been following the story all that closely, but it seems there have been inconcistencies with the official narrative. I think the military is throwing Obama under the bus. The White House also said they watched the whole operation in visual real time and they released the photo of the WH meeting where everyone was watching. Then the military came out and said the operation was blacked out for 40 minutes during the most relevant part where Osama was killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 So the revelation that an OSI-style disinformation campaign does still exist should not come as a surprise. [/i] LOLZ!!, something like 75% of the CIA's entire operation is disinfo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 So, what the fuck's going on in Libya anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 OBL got shot in the head - the guy is dead - without laying out any reasonable evidence than the usual hand waving. some kind of fruedian slip going on here, LOLZ!!! So Jim, or any of the others on this thread who believe the Orwell TV. Please give us a link to the evidence that proves that Osama was killed by the seals in Abbottabad. Kinda funny that you make a distinction between watching TV and spending your days on the innernutz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 seems about right to me, and the only real argument is on the first question, if that? yeah i think there is a real issue with the first question. first it was reported he had an ak 47, then his wife was armed, then no one was armed? truthfully, i haven't been following the story all that closely, but it seems there have been inconcistencies with the official narrative. I think the military is throwing Obama under the bus. The White House also said they watched the whole operation in visual real time and they released the photo of the WH meeting where everyone was watching. Then the military came out and said the operation was blacked out for 40 minutes during the most relevant part where Osama was killed. Woah, DOOD. Like, Smoking Gun n shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.