Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

9/11 Independent Investigation?

103 replies to this topic
lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#61

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:35 AM

Government is spoken of as a single entity, one brain, one thought, one action. It isn’t. It is a number of individuals each working to improve his/her place in the world.
To use broad strokes of the brush to say, ‘the Government’ can’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t do something is to deny that any individual or group of individuals is/are incapable of thinking as the ‘sayer’ believes. Many catastrophes occur because of a number of individual failings, not necessarily a cabal’s nefarious doings. And, it wouldn’t be beyond the individual/group to use coincidences to further the ‘project’ in hand.

When you take a few organizations, each working for its own end and that happened to coincide at some random point. BOOM it’s a conspiracy. Competent at one end and incompetent at the other, and all being paid for by the same ignorant Paymaster.
With no one willing to take responsibility for cock-up, each will either cover up or try to point/shift the blame. Again, no conspiracy, just guys doing their jobs.
Although it is not uncommon for people in organizations to ignore unpleasant facts, for mutually self-protection, without formal agreement.

Then again, it doesn’t disprove any real conspiracy either.


Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#62

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:58 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 18:22)
QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
There have been only two other "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" that have collapsed as a result of fire, the other 2 "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" being the WTC towers that collapsed earlier in the day.

Well, that depends on your definition of both "high rise" and "steel framed". There are two examples of high rise structures with a similar internal composition to WTC partially collapsing solely because of structural failure due to fire damage- the Windsor Tower in Madrid and The Delf School of Architecture. Both had similar steel framed constructions to WTC7. Both suffered partial structural failures due to localised fires causing weakening of structural steel. But I must point out that WTC1 and 2 were of a different construction than WTC7. And the issue with this response is that it keeps introducing caveats that move the goal posts. Firstly it's "there's never been a high rise collapse due solely to fire". Then it's "there's never been a high rise steel-frame collapse due to fire". Then it's "there's never been high rise, steel-frame skyscraper collapse due to fire". As you introduce more caveats, the pool of possible buildings that could meet these conditions decreases, and therefore so does that chance of someone finding a suitably similar set of circumstances which to compare it to.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
However, these buildings are not high-rise, steel framed skyscrapers. Also McCormick not did not fully collapse. If you could show me another high rise, steel framed skyscraper that has collapsed in a similar manner to the 3 WTC towers then I will never again think about this piece of information when wondering about what happened on 9/11.

It's worth pointing out that no other steel-framed high-rise building has ever been subject to combined kinetic and thermal energy equivalent to a small tactical nuclear weapon either, as was the case in these examples. The combination of impact and fire greatly surpasses in all measurable ways anything that's been experienced before with this kind of structure.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
I do not know if thermite was found

Thermite is Iron Oxide and Aluminium. I don't see how the presence of Iron Oxide and Aluminium in the wreckage of a steel-framed building which was hit by an aluminium airliner could ever be suspicious. The only people who make the "it was thermite" arguments are people who tend to be scientifically ignorant. If you're happy to give equal credence to ignorant people attempting to fit evidence to a hypothesis they've already formed as you are to scientifically minded individuals who want to draw conclusions from evidence, then that's your choice.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
Person A says "it was controlled demolition"

Again, this is an example of a lack of scientific and technical knowledge. Numerous people have authored academic, peer-review papers that use computer modelling to demonstrate the most probable cause for the collapse of WTC7, but apparently these peer-review works aren't worth their salt compared to the spurious hypotheses of ignorant luddites using arguments I, as someone with a great deal of familiarity with the circumstances of the events though no great technical understanding, can decimate before my coffee gets cold.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
When does an expert become a crank?

When they insist things are true that go against empirical evidence, or when they tenaciously propose hypotheses which are logically flawed to the point of being untenable whilst failing to listen to reason. The same time anyone else becomes a crank.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
You have the opinion that the 1,500+ Architects and Engineers are cranks, they are not experts, why?

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the professional bodies that are meant to support architects. They question how many of that supposed 1,500 are actually qualified at all, and if they are why the organisation won't release their names and qualifications. They question the scientific basis for many of their claims; the lack of technical detail and applicability in many of their published works, and their complete failure to demonstrate through simulation modelling that the official story of the collapse is implausible. Though I assume the latter is because it's been demonstrated numerous times with a variety of structural modelling programmes that the official story is entirely plausible.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
I don't consider a structural engineer with 30 years experience, giving his opinion that Building 7 collapsed through controlled demolition to be a crank.

If that structural engineer presented their work in a peer-review paper, open for scientific scrutiny, fully referenced and with impeccable sourcing, then I wouldn't consider them a crank either. But that's not what we've got here. We've got claims from a centralised organisation that claims to represent 1,500 nameless "architects and engineers" who've not released anything that's open for proper scrutiny for all the reasons I've outlined above. If they started producing work of obvious merit, with proper empirical demonstrations and simulations, instead of basing their claims on hyperbole, hearsay and fuzzy still frames of video footage, I'd give them a lot more credence. Until then, thought, I treat them the same way I'd treat a medical profession who recommended homoeopathy as a cure for cancer- with a great deal of fully deserved scepticism. This is what separates an expert from a crank- the quality of their testimony.

For the record, the issue with this kind of conspiracy theory is it all comes apart at the seams if one aspect of it cannot be properly justified. We've got very much bogged down in the detail of particular claims and counter-claims but I posted numerous rebuttals related to non-technical aspects of the theory which have gone unanswered- mostly in reference to the nature of counter-insurgency conflict, the myth of war for profit and the numerous questions around the requirement for such and audacious plot.

Also, basing trust, or lack of it, in a hypothesis solely in relation to the trustworthiness of the government who happens to agree with that hypothesis seems really silly to me. The argument equivalent of a child claiming they don't like something just because someone else does. If you can create an argument that demonstrates why and how an implicit lack of trust based on historic events can be reasonably translated into support for hypotheses which lack scientific credibility, I'm all ears.




Also, I've already discussed Northwoods, and double posting is against the forum rules. As is going off on unrelated tangents.

Take a day off.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#63

Posted 22 July 2013 - 07:00 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 01:58)
Wait what? Did you watch the video?

Yes I did. Either you've posted a different video to the one you're claiming, or you're claiming that it says something it doesn't because you don't think anyone will have watched it. The introduction basically states that the interviewee is discussing the prospect of whether it would have been possible to stop the bombing with knowledge acquired beforehand- in fact it's exactly the same f*cking video as the New York Time article I posted discussed but apparently you're so incapable of actually understanding anything without turning it into a massive conspiracy that you've completely failed to see this. I can see- just about- why you've turned it into a massive conspiracy but you're chasing things that aren't there- as per usual. Another New York Times article discussing the transcripts. Second NYT article discussing the tapes. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the plot was known about, but the assumption that there was any culpability on the part of the FBI in the actual attacks is completely groundless. If you listen to the other tapes- which are publicly available, might I add- it becomes clear that Salem's relationship with Egypt and suspicions he may have been operating as a double-agent of the Egyptian government meant little credence was given to his views until after the bombing. Cooperative Research page. Some books on Google Scholar that might be reading too which corroborate this; Wilful Blindness: A Memory of the Jihad, Peter Lance's 1000 Years for Revenge and it is a prominent case study in Confidential Informant: Law Enforcement's Most Valuable Tool.

Fill yer boots.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 01:58)
One side you say "Our government isn't talented enough to  pull off a false flag attack" then when there's evidence of them covering their tracks you go "You really think our government would be careless enough to leave evidence of a false flag attack?" You don't see the flaw in this way of thinking?

My argument isn't entirely based on people believing two completely opposable things, though. The statement below doesn't actually represent a dichotomy like yours because I'm not asking you to believe both at the same time. For your argument to make sense you must believe that the US security apparatus are skilled and competent enough to have pulled of a massive false-flag attack with no tangible public knowledge of it, and yet so incompetent to have left numerous alleged flaws in their plan that are abundantly clear to you (thought it must be said disagreed on by just about everyone with any credibility on the subject, but I digress). I'm pointing out that, given the nature of FBI-CIA collaborative operations in the early 1990s and serious issues in adaptation of their intelligence apparatus from the Cold War threat landscape to a multi-axis, multi-polar extremism-based threat landscape, the idea that they would be capable of conducting a false flag attack is absurd (and this is especially telling in relation to your claims involving Northwoods- you're argument is "oh, the DoD planned a false flag attack before" but that only translates into a logical argument if you're claiming the DoD did so again, but you can't make up your mind who was responsible for 9/11 and haven't provided any evidence for individual, let alone group culpability so as an idea it's a bit crap). If we make the assumption that the FBI/CIA/DoD are what your theory requires them to be- that is, a shady, underhand and incredibly competent secret agency with vast, near limitless capabilities and resources, then it becomes absurd to assume that your so-called "evidence" fits this hypothesis because surely an organisation with that kind of capability would be able to conduct such an act without unqualified conspiracy theorists with absolutely no technical grounding in the subject being able to see the whole thing was a scam? Utterly absurd.

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#64

Posted 22 July 2013 - 02:49 PM

sivispacem, you'd make a great lawyer. You'd especially be a Big Boss with the Oh-So-Wonderful filibuster technique. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody on the internet type so much and employing a frequent use of words that are highly unnecessary but deemed necessarily intellectual, as to confuse and baffle the opposition in such a way that nothing can be really replied to because it just drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . not even yet noting this incredible faith in logic and absence of understanding in regards to human error, human psychology and human emotion.

And I guess this is where you fail to see how your own argument even fails: If they would indeed be so skilled as to pull off a false-flag operation of this level, you say they would have done it perfectly; no mistakes, no obvious flaws, no errors, absolutely no one with no 'technical grounding' (this is a silly statement too because sometimes inexperience is the best experience and if you can't understand - sorry, I mean, fathom, makes me sound smarter - that then your whole view of life is grounded into logical theory and paper, not on humanity) on whatever the subject is would be able to see through these flaws. Yet, you say it yourself that as soon as anyone even mentions conspiracy regarding 9/11, a sh*t storm ensues and they are branded the idiot with the dunce cap. This highly skilled form of governance would be able to create such a psychological mind game, and if all of that is actually true, then they have done well. No one can prove anything, of course, but we only have to look at the events after 9/11 to conclude that IF it was a false-flag operation, it was a great success. And please don't assume that what I'm saying here means: ''Well, because it fits, it must be true!''

You, on the other hand put all your faith into the 'educated and the knowledgeable', which even by your own use of logic could be argued against with a simple 'they could be knowingly or unknowingly involved.' If you're so adamant on arguing with everything and everyone and taking on the other side of the spectrum just for the sake of it, I suggest you do the same to all of your thoughts. Of course, this would be an endless argument with no end as literally anything can be argued against with the right amount of endurance and perseverance, be it false or not.

Mainly, I suggest a good pussy. Really.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#65

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:19 PM Edited by sivispacem, 22 July 2013 - 03:26 PM.

QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:49)
sivispacem, you'd make a great lawyer. You'd especially be a Big Boss with the Oh-So-Wonderful filibuster technique. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody on the internet type so much and employing a frequent use of words that are highly unnecessary but deemed necessarily intellectual, as to confuse and baffle the opposition in such a way that nothing can be really replied to because it just drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . not even yet noting this incredible faith in logic and absence of understanding in regards to human error, human psychology and human emotion.

And I guess this is where you fail to see how your own argument even fails: If they would indeed be so skilled as to pull off a false-flag operation of this level, you say they would have done it perfectly; no mistakes, no obvious flaws, no errors, absolutely no one with no 'technical grounding' (this is a silly statement too because sometimes inexperience is the best experience and if you can't understand - sorry, I mean, fathom, makes me sound smarter - that then your whole view of life is grounded into logical theory and paper, not on humanity) on whatever the subject is would be able to see through these flaws. Yet, you say it yourself that as soon as anyone even mentions conspiracy regarding 9/11, a sh*t storm ensues and they are branded the idiot with the dunce cap. This highly skilled form of governance would be able to create such a psychological mind game, and if all of that is actually true, then they have done well. No one can prove anything, of course, but we only have to look at the events after 9/11 to conclude that IF it was a false-flag operation, it was a great success. And please don't assume that what I'm saying here means: ''Well, because it fits, it must be true!''

You, on the other hand put all your faith into the 'educated and the knowledgeable', which even by your own use of logic could be argued against with a simple 'they could be knowingly or unknowingly involved.' If you're so adamant on arguing with everything and everyone and taking on the other side of the spectrum just for the sake of it, I suggest you do the same to all of your thoughts. Of course, this would be an endless argument with no end as literally anything can be argued against with the right amount of endurance and perseverance, be it false or not.

Mainly, I suggest a good pussy. Really.

In relation to the one part of that which constitutes actually making a point as opposed to rambling barely comprehensibly or in some cases incomprehensibly, what you appear to be claiming is that people with no technical grounding in a subject and no clear authority to speak on it can potentially have a higher probability of being correct that properly qualified external observers. Which is a bold claim indeed, and one I would really like you to try and substantiate. Not because I don't believe that ignorant people are capable of being factually correct, but because you've made the claim that ignorance is a virtue in relation to being able to assess the technical aspects of complex events and I don't think that's anything more than your personal opinion.

Or at least that's what your response reads as, I can't really make hide nor hair of it other than identifying you don't particularly like me ridiculing ignorant beliefs. Which is fair enough, but I don't really care about your personal views on the matter. The "knowing or unknowing involvement" argument is all very nice too but it falls down on several points- one, the larger a conspiracy is, the less feasible it becomes; two, the wider the conspiracy, the more likelihood there is of public disclosure that actually makes the vaguest amount of sense, and thirdly the total lack of evidence. Any theory which has to invent a hypothetical situation to demonstrate another hypothetical situation as part of an argument is on pretty shaky ground.

Oh, and next time you might be better served contributing something material to the topic rather than one very opaque point concealed in three paragraphs of barely comprehensible drivel.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#66

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:34 PM Edited by Ryan, 22 July 2013 - 03:46 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:19)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:49)
sivispacem, you'd make a great lawyer. You'd especially be a Big Boss with the Oh-So-Wonderful filibuster technique. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody on the internet type so much and employing a frequent use of words that are highly unnecessary but deemed necessarily intellectual, as to confuse and baffle the opposition in such a way that nothing can be really replied to because it just drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . not even yet noting this incredible faith in logic and absence of understanding in regards to human error, human psychology and human emotion.

And I guess this is where you fail to see how your own argument even fails: If they would indeed be so skilled as to pull off a false-flag operation of this level, you say they would have done it perfectly; no mistakes, no obvious flaws, no errors, absolutely no one with no 'technical grounding' (this is a silly statement too because sometimes inexperience is the best experience and if you can't understand - sorry, I mean, fathom, makes me sound smarter - that then your whole view of life is grounded into logical theory and paper, not on humanity) on whatever the subject is would be able to see through these flaws. Yet, you say it yourself that as soon as anyone even mentions conspiracy regarding 9/11, a sh*t storm ensues and they are branded the idiot with the dunce cap. This highly skilled form of governance would be able to create such a psychological mind game, and if all of that is actually true, then they have done well. No one can prove anything, of course, but we only have to look at the events after 9/11 to conclude that IF it was a false-flag operation, it was a great success. And please don't assume that what I'm saying here means: ''Well, because it fits, it must be true!''

You, on the other hand put all your faith into the 'educated and the knowledgeable', which even by your own use of logic could be argued against with a simple 'they could be knowingly or unknowingly involved.' If you're so adamant on arguing with everything and everyone and taking on the other side of the spectrum just for the sake of it, I suggest you do the same to all of your thoughts. Of course, this would be an endless argument with no end as literally anything can be argued against with the right amount of endurance and perseverance, be it false or not.

Mainly, I suggest a good pussy. Really.

In relation to the one part of that which constitutes actually making a point as opposed to rambling barely comprehensibly or in some cases incomprehensibly, what you appear to be claiming is that people with no technical grounding in a subject and no clear authority to speak on it can potentially have a higher probability of being correct that properly qualified external observers. Which is a bold claim indeed, and one I would really like you to try and substantiate. Not because I don't believe that ignorant people are capable of being factually correct, but because you've made the claim that ignorance is a virtue in relation to being able to assess the technical aspects of complex events and I don't think that's anything more than your personal opinion.

Or at least that's what your response reads as, I can't really make hide nor hair of it other than identifying you don't particularly like me ridiculing ignorant beliefs. Which is fair enough, but I don't really care about your personal views on the matter. The "knowing or unknowing involvement" argument is all very nice too but it falls down on several points- one, the larger a conspiracy is, the less feasible it becomes; two, the wider the conspiracy, the more likelihood there is of public disclosure that actually makes the vaguest amount of sense, and thirdly the total lack of evidence. Any theory which has to invent a hypothetical situation to demonstrate another hypothetical situation as part of an argument is on pretty shaky ground.

Oh, and next time you might be better served contributing something material to the topic rather than one very opaque point concealed in three paragraphs of barely comprehensible drivel.

You sir, are a self aggrandising nitwit. I really hope that one day you meet a woman and have sex, realise the error of your ways and stop trying to impress people on the internet with incessant tautology.


Oh and uh yeah, the government doing 9/11, sure why not. I mean we're talking about the same government that poisoned it's own people with syphilis.

User warned for this post

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#67

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:34)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:19)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:49)
sivispacem, you'd make a great lawyer. You'd especially be a Big Boss with the Oh-So-Wonderful filibuster technique. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody on the internet type so much and employing a frequent use of words that are highly unnecessary but deemed necessarily intellectual, as to confuse and baffle the opposition in such a way that nothing can be really replied to because it just drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . not even yet noting this incredible faith in logic and absence of understanding in regards to human error, human psychology and human emotion.

And I guess this is where you fail to see how your own argument even fails: If they would indeed be so skilled as to pull off a false-flag operation of this level, you say they would have done it perfectly; no mistakes, no obvious flaws, no errors, absolutely no one with no 'technical grounding' (this is a silly statement too because sometimes inexperience is the best experience and if you can't understand - sorry, I mean, fathom, makes me sound smarter - that then your whole view of life is grounded into logical theory and paper, not on humanity) on whatever the subject is would be able to see through these flaws. Yet, you say it yourself that as soon as anyone even mentions conspiracy regarding 9/11, a sh*t storm ensues and they are branded the idiot with the dunce cap. This highly skilled form of governance would be able to create such a psychological mind game, and if all of that is actually true, then they have done well. No one can prove anything, of course, but we only have to look at the events after 9/11 to conclude that IF it was a false-flag operation, it was a great success. And please don't assume that what I'm saying here means: ''Well, because it fits, it must be true!''

You, on the other hand put all your faith into the 'educated and the knowledgeable', which even by your own use of logic could be argued against with a simple 'they could be knowingly or unknowingly involved.' If you're so adamant on arguing with everything and everyone and taking on the other side of the spectrum just for the sake of it, I suggest you do the same to all of your thoughts. Of course, this would be an endless argument with no end as literally anything can be argued against with the right amount of endurance and perseverance, be it false or not.

Mainly, I suggest a good pussy. Really.

In relation to the one part of that which constitutes actually making a point as opposed to rambling barely comprehensibly or in some cases incomprehensibly, what you appear to be claiming is that people with no technical grounding in a subject and no clear authority to speak on it can potentially have a higher probability of being correct that properly qualified external observers. Which is a bold claim indeed, and one I would really like you to try and substantiate. Not because I don't believe that ignorant people are capable of being factually correct, but because you've made the claim that ignorance is a virtue in relation to being able to assess the technical aspects of complex events and I don't think that's anything more than your personal opinion.

Or at least that's what your response reads as, I can't really make hide nor hair of it other than identifying you don't particularly like me ridiculing ignorant beliefs. Which is fair enough, but I don't really care about your personal views on the matter. The "knowing or unknowing involvement" argument is all very nice too but it falls down on several points- one, the larger a conspiracy is, the less feasible it becomes; two, the wider the conspiracy, the more likelihood there is of public disclosure that actually makes the vaguest amount of sense, and thirdly the total lack of evidence. Any theory which has to invent a hypothetical situation to demonstrate another hypothetical situation as part of an argument is on pretty shaky ground.

Oh, and next time you might be better served contributing something material to the topic rather than one very opaque point concealed in three paragraphs of barely comprehensible drivel.

You sir, are a self aggrandising nitwit. I really hope that one day you meet a woman and have sex, realise the error of your ways and stop trying to impress people on the internet with incessant tautology.


Oh and uh yeah, the government doing 9/11, sure why not. I mean we're talking about the same government that poisoned it's own people with syphilis.

The great irony being that it's obviously aggrieved you to such an extent that you feel the need to stoop even lower in responding.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#68

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:48 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:44)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:34)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:19)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:49)
sivispacem, you'd make a great lawyer. You'd especially be a Big Boss with the Oh-So-Wonderful filibuster technique. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anybody on the internet type so much and employing a frequent use of words that are highly unnecessary but deemed necessarily intellectual, as to confuse and baffle the opposition in such a way that nothing can be really replied to because it just drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . not even yet noting this incredible faith in logic and absence of understanding in regards to human error, human psychology and human emotion.

And I guess this is where you fail to see how your own argument even fails: If they would indeed be so skilled as to pull off a false-flag operation of this level, you say they would have done it perfectly; no mistakes, no obvious flaws, no errors, absolutely no one with no 'technical grounding' (this is a silly statement too because sometimes inexperience is the best experience and if you can't understand - sorry, I mean, fathom, makes me sound smarter - that then your whole view of life is grounded into logical theory and paper, not on humanity) on whatever the subject is would be able to see through these flaws. Yet, you say it yourself that as soon as anyone even mentions conspiracy regarding 9/11, a sh*t storm ensues and they are branded the idiot with the dunce cap. This highly skilled form of governance would be able to create such a psychological mind game, and if all of that is actually true, then they have done well. No one can prove anything, of course, but we only have to look at the events after 9/11 to conclude that IF it was a false-flag operation, it was a great success. And please don't assume that what I'm saying here means: ''Well, because it fits, it must be true!''

You, on the other hand put all your faith into the 'educated and the knowledgeable', which even by your own use of logic could be argued against with a simple 'they could be knowingly or unknowingly involved.' If you're so adamant on arguing with everything and everyone and taking on the other side of the spectrum just for the sake of it, I suggest you do the same to all of your thoughts. Of course, this would be an endless argument with no end as literally anything can be argued against with the right amount of endurance and perseverance, be it false or not.

Mainly, I suggest a good pussy. Really.

In relation to the one part of that which constitutes actually making a point as opposed to rambling barely comprehensibly or in some cases incomprehensibly, what you appear to be claiming is that people with no technical grounding in a subject and no clear authority to speak on it can potentially have a higher probability of being correct that properly qualified external observers. Which is a bold claim indeed, and one I would really like you to try and substantiate. Not because I don't believe that ignorant people are capable of being factually correct, but because you've made the claim that ignorance is a virtue in relation to being able to assess the technical aspects of complex events and I don't think that's anything more than your personal opinion.

Or at least that's what your response reads as, I can't really make hide nor hair of it other than identifying you don't particularly like me ridiculing ignorant beliefs. Which is fair enough, but I don't really care about your personal views on the matter. The "knowing or unknowing involvement" argument is all very nice too but it falls down on several points- one, the larger a conspiracy is, the less feasible it becomes; two, the wider the conspiracy, the more likelihood there is of public disclosure that actually makes the vaguest amount of sense, and thirdly the total lack of evidence. Any theory which has to invent a hypothetical situation to demonstrate another hypothetical situation as part of an argument is on pretty shaky ground.

Oh, and next time you might be better served contributing something material to the topic rather than one very opaque point concealed in three paragraphs of barely comprehensible drivel.

You sir, are a self aggrandising nitwit. I really hope that one day you meet a woman and have sex, realise the error of your ways and stop trying to impress people on the internet with incessant tautology.


Oh and uh yeah, the government doing 9/11, sure why not. I mean we're talking about the same government that poisoned it's own people with syphilis.

The great irony being that it's obviously aggrieved you to such an extent that you feel the need to stoop even lower in responding.

No, I think it's amusing to annoy you, clearly you care way too much about how people view you on the internet, so attacking your personal image, integrity or intelligence amuses me and likely offends you as you too have resorted to said low stoopage.


Um yeah, 9/11 you say? Well I mean maybe. The US government did feed unborn babies radiation.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#69

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:56 PM

No, I just enjoy a good chin wag.

Read the forum rules recently? Perhaps you should again.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#70

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 15:56)
No, I just enjoy a good chin wag.

Read the forum rules recently? Perhaps you should again.

Whether or not the US government is committing mass murder is your idea of a 'good chin wag?' Note that the following isn't an insult that would breach the fabled GTAfourms rules, just a friendly piece of advice: If you want a 'good chin wag' then maybe you should stop using unnecessary verbs to say the same thing four times, it's annoying and detracts from any actual interaction with you, other than to mock the aformetioned verbage.

What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#71

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:04)
What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

Seriously? And whould be the point? Even if infecting the population with viruses and toxic substances is despicable, it had experimental purpose for the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, but what would be the point of tearing down all these buildings? testing if a building can support the impact of a plane?

Isn't more rational the explanation that, after years of wars in Middle East, support of local dictatorships which had firm hand against fundamentalism, these extremist groups wanted to strike back?

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#72

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:21 PM

Two things: the winning of hearts and minds and winning the war.

Goodbye darling, Hello Vietnam.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#73

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:22 PM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:16)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:04)
What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

Seriously? And whould be the point? Even if infecting the population with viruses and toxic substances is despicable, it had experimental purpose for the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, but what would be the point of tearing down all these buildings? testing if a building can support the impact of a plane?

Isn't more rational the explanation that, after years of wars in Middle East, support of local dictatorships which had firm hand against fundamentalism, these extremist groups wanted to strike back?

It is more plausible, yes. Much more plausible. You in fact could say that it is probable. My point was that the argument that the government or ANY government wouldn't commit crimes against it's own people is a nonsense one, even in our upstanding oh so great western democracy. They have done it before and they still do it now.

But mainly I made that point because I was warned for being off topic.


Oh, also remember that the aims of the US government is resource control, the PNAC stated that they needed a 'Pearl harbour' type event in order to enact policies which involved resource grabbing that the public would support.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#74

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:21)
Two things: the winning of hearts and minds and winning the war.

Goodbye darling, Hello Vietnam.

Well, there's no need for that to start TWO new Vietnams; just a big deployment in one of these small African countries no one has heard about before, exagerating media and you'd have another great victory and all the country applauding. Something like Grenada or the Op. Just Cause.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#75

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:22)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:16)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:04)
What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

Seriously? And whould be the point? Even if infecting the population with viruses and toxic substances is despicable, it had experimental purpose for the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, but what would be the point of tearing down all these buildings? testing if a building can support the impact of a plane?

Isn't more rational the explanation that, after years of wars in Middle East, support of local dictatorships which had firm hand against fundamentalism, these extremist groups wanted to strike back?

It is more plausible, yes. Much more plausible. You in fact could say that it is probable. My point was that the argument that the government or ANY government wouldn't commit crimes against it's own people is a nonsense one, even in our upstanding oh so great western democracy. They have done it before and they still do it now.

But mainly I made that point because I was warned for being off topic.


Oh, also remember that the aims of the US government is resource control, the PNAC stated that they needed a 'Pearl harbour' type event in order to enact policies which involved resource grabbing that the public would support.

Thanks for responding to a point no-one has made.

Also, wars tend to be resource negative. Especially counter-insurgency ones. Vietnam being a perfect example. Or Malaya. Or Kenya. Or Somalia. Or Afghanistan. Or basically any counter-insurgency conflict you care to mention. In fact the whole principle of war for direct resource profit contradicts accepted strategic theory.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#76

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:40 PM Edited by Ilikehotcrossbuns, 22 July 2013 - 04:43 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:29)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:22)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:16)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:04)
What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

Seriously? And whould be the point? Even if infecting the population with viruses and toxic substances is despicable, it had experimental purpose for the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, but what would be the point of tearing down all these buildings? testing if a building can support the impact of a plane?

Isn't more rational the explanation that, after years of wars in Middle East, support of local dictatorships which had firm hand against fundamentalism, these extremist groups wanted to strike back?

It is more plausible, yes. Much more plausible. You in fact could say that it is probable. My point was that the argument that the government or ANY government wouldn't commit crimes against it's own people is a nonsense one, even in our upstanding oh so great western democracy. They have done it before and they still do it now.

But mainly I made that point because I was warned for being off topic.


Oh, also remember that the aims of the US government is resource control, the PNAC stated that they needed a 'Pearl harbour' type event in order to enact policies which involved resource grabbing that the public would support.

Thanks for responding to a point no-one has made.

Also, wars tend to be resource negative. Especially counter-insurgency ones. Vietnam being a perfect example. Or Malaya. Or Kenya. Or Somalia. Or Afghanistan. Or basically any counter-insurgency conflict you care to mention. In fact the whole principle of war for direct resource profit contradicts accepted strategic theory.

I never said anything about profit, I said resource control. If I need to explain to you why controlling oil reserves is important, then frankly I don't think you should be participating in big boy discussions. As for Afghanistan and Vietnam being 'counter insurgencies' then I really do think you shouldn't be participating in big boy discussion.

Oh and resource control is very much accepted strategic theory, thank you very much.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#77

Posted 22 July 2013 - 05:02 PM Edited by sivispacem, 22 July 2013 - 06:09 PM.

QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:40)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:29)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:22)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:16)
QUOTE (Ilikehotcrossbuns @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 16:04)
What, the US government committing covert operations against it's own people? Well it's plausible I guess, they did infect orphans with tuberculosis after all!

Seriously? And whould be the point? Even if infecting the population with viruses and toxic substances is despicable, it had experimental purpose for the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, but what would be the point of tearing down all these buildings? testing if a building can support the impact of a plane?

Isn't more rational the explanation that, after years of wars in Middle East, support of local dictatorships which had firm hand against fundamentalism, these extremist groups wanted to strike back?

It is more plausible, yes. Much more plausible. You in fact could say that it is probable. My point was that the argument that the government or ANY government wouldn't commit crimes against it's own people is a nonsense one, even in our upstanding oh so great western democracy. They have done it before and they still do it now.

But mainly I made that point because I was warned for being off topic.


Oh, also remember that the aims of the US government is resource control, the PNAC stated that they needed a 'Pearl harbour' type event in order to enact policies which involved resource grabbing that the public would support.

Thanks for responding to a point no-one has made.

Also, wars tend to be resource negative. Especially counter-insurgency ones. Vietnam being a perfect example. Or Malaya. Or Kenya. Or Somalia. Or Afghanistan. Or basically any counter-insurgency conflict you care to mention. In fact the whole principle of war for direct resource profit contradicts accepted strategic theory.

I never said anything about profit, I said resource control. If I need to explain to you why controlling oil reserves is important, then frankly I don't think you should be participating in big boy discussions. As for Afghanistan and Vietnam being 'counter insurgencies' then I really do think you shouldn't be participating in big boy discussion.

Oh and resource control is very much accepted strategic theory, thank you very much.

Did you just say that Afghanistan (I was referring to the Soviet invasion but both work in the context) and Vietnam weren't counter-insurgency conflicts? They're basically the definition of COIN. How else would you typify them given that every strategic theorist in the world has classed them as COIN conflicts. Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

You see, I'm very keen to hear your musings on why and how Vietnam wasn't a counter-insurgency conflict. I'm also very interested to see you explain which accepted doctrine of strategic theory supports the principle of resource control. Because to my knowledge, the most accepted form of international relations theory amongst nation state authorities and academics are defensive and strategic realism in the style of Robert Jervis and Thomas Schelling respectively, and they both extensively explore the harmful repercussions of obsession about security and inaccurate perceptions of offensive-defensive balance, as well as taking into account the material costs of conflict and the fact that aggression, even amongst the strongest global powers, is usually negative-sum in the long-term due to the destabilising effects of conflict, especially prolonged conflict, causing security escalations in other hostile or neutral powers that weaken any strategic advantage that military incursions may produce in the short term. In short, conflict over resource control only makes sense if that control is actually established, and at a cost less than the spoils of gaining control. In a resource conflict that became a counter-insurgency conflict, you'd expect a rational actor whose primary interest was obtaining control over resources to demobilise and cut their losses rapidly as the tolls of war outweighed the possible material gains of their operations- and if you were to propose the "war for resource control" hypothesis on either Iraq or Afghanistan- which is what I presume you're doing, given that you've brought it into the discussion as if it were actually relevant- then you'd meet this standard long before you actually saw demobilisation in both cases. Also, you'd expect to see far more resources placed on maintaining physical control of, and physical security for, resource centres- which we also haven't seen in either case, with the greatest focus quite clearly being on general security.

Go back to your V forum playpen.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#78

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:36 PM

I don't think anybody reasonable suggests that the goal of the conflicts in the Middle East was to just run in and seize the oil (well, maybe our petulant friend here is suggesting that but most people wouldn't). More like attacking oil-states in the Middle East makes other Middle Eastern agents more likely to cooperate; remember, even "moneyed Muslims" are only allied with the West through gritted teeth. Yes, it's f*cking crazy, but the Bush administration were not sane people. They weren't ordinary politicians- they were belligerent fantasists with messianic delusions.

It also fits the US's usual modus operandi to a T: destabilise a country, leave the new government with a mess to clean up (meaning security is their number one priority), sell them weapons and force them to set up favourable economic conditions for the Western corporations that generously offer to step in and rebuild the country (read:Nicaragua).

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#79

Posted 22 July 2013 - 07:07 PM

Which begs the question, why Iraq? Anyone even vaguely versed on the nature of Iraqi society could have seen the absolute clusterf*ck a military intervention would have caused; I mean, if we are to take your hypothesis at face value- and that isn't to say I agree with it, as we've had an...animated discussion regarding it previously, and accept that as rational international actors the circa 2001 United States government aren't exactly top of the pile, it still doesn't make a great deal of sense from a power projection perspective. I get the principle of overt displays of military power in reference to Iraq, like Desert Fox in 1998, but I just can't see how anyone looked at conducing a full invasion plus multiple-year occupation with no real strategic objectives or proper forethought and though "yep, that's a good idea". It's a catastrophic example of strategic incompetence and I really don't know what the US plus allies were hoping to achieve, but to me the clearer a final prospective endgame you try and put on it, the less sense it makes.

Unless of course the primary strategic goal was to instigate an RMA in most Western militaries which has caused them to disengage from conventional power politics and large-scale conflict preparation, and instead focus on small-scale, multi-polar limited wars which are likely to be the primary flashpoint over the next generation or two. But you still didn't need to invade Iraq to do that. Just Afghanistan should have been enough.

mdr279
  • mdr279

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2012

#80

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:17 AM

Hey sivispacem, looks like we have another one of these on our hands tounge.gif http://www.gtaforums...pic=562290&st=0

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#81

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:37 AM

QUOTE (mdr279 @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 10:17)
Hey sivispacem, looks like we have another one of these on our hands tounge.gif http://www.gtaforums...pic=562290&st=0

There's one every few weeks at the moment. Probably due to the influx of new members awaiting the release of V. I miss the days they used to just post them in the Debates and Discussion section so I could link them to the last 30 pages of deluded bilge and lock it. Though they always play out the same way. Member starts discussion, flies swarm in, flies start to disappear when they lose the argument, one takes particular offense and starts to get personal, gets warned, starts an off-topic debate by biting off more than they can chew and then runs away when they get asked questions they can't answer. Thread gradually dies.

And thus goes every topic of this nature on these forums. Idiots these days, no bloody stamina.

mdr279
  • mdr279

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2012

#82

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 19:37)
QUOTE (mdr279 @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 10:17)
Hey sivispacem, looks like we have another one of these on our hands  tounge.gif  http://www.gtaforums...pic=562290&st=0

There's one every few weeks at the moment. Probably due to the influx of new members awaiting the release of V. I miss the days they used to just post them in the Debates and Discussion section so I could link them to the last 30 pages of deluded bilge and lock it. Though they always play out the same way. Member starts discussion, flies swarm in, flies start to disappear when they lose the argument, one takes particular offense and starts to get personal, gets warned, starts an off-topic debate by biting off more than they can chew and then runs away when they get asked questions they can't answer. Thread gradually dies.

And thus goes every topic of this nature on these forums. Idiots these days, no bloody stamina.

Yes, I think you're right. Most of the new members making the topics wouldn't even know there is a Debates and Discussion section and just rush in and create these topics.

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#83

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)
Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

Don't be stupid. You're clearly irritated with me and now you have to resort to twisting my words because I never even implied that. I was talking about possibility, not literal truth or false lies.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#84

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:42 PM

QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:12)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)
Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

Don't be stupid. You're clearly irritated with me and now you have to resort to twisting my words because I never even implied that. I was talking about possibility, not literal truth or false lies.

No, you made a the claim that in some circumstances individuals who have no grounding in a subject can be more qualified to speak on the issue than subject matter experts by virtue of your suggestion that "sometimes inexperience is the best experience"- which is a bold claim with no real empiricism behind it, and a little bit misleading because we're not discussing experience but understanding and competence; a subject matter expert doesn't necessarily have to possess direct experience in order to be competent as application is distinct from understanding. I merely used your questionable insinuation that I still note you haven't actually supported to ridicule someone else who made an absurdly illogical point.

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#85

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 14:42)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:12)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)
Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

Don't be stupid. You're clearly irritated with me and now you have to resort to twisting my words because I never even implied that. I was talking about possibility, not literal truth or false lies.

No, you made a the claim that in some circumstances individuals who have no grounding in a subject can be more qualified to speak on the issue than subject matter experts by virtue of your suggestion that "sometimes inexperience is the best experience"- which is a bold claim with no real empiricism behind it, and a little bit misleading because we're not discussing experience but understanding and competence; a subject matter expert doesn't necessarily have to possess direct experience in order to be competent as application is distinct from understanding. I merely used your questionable insinuation that I still note you haven't actually supported to ridicule someone else who made an absurdly illogical point.

Come again?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#86

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:52)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 14:42)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:12)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)
Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

Don't be stupid. You're clearly irritated with me and now you have to resort to twisting my words because I never even implied that. I was talking about possibility, not literal truth or false lies.

No, you made a the claim that in some circumstances individuals who have no grounding in a subject can be more qualified to speak on the issue than subject matter experts by virtue of your suggestion that "sometimes inexperience is the best experience"- which is a bold claim with no real empiricism behind it, and a little bit misleading because we're not discussing experience but understanding and competence; a subject matter expert doesn't necessarily have to possess direct experience in order to be competent as application is distinct from understanding. I merely used your questionable insinuation that I still note you haven't actually supported to ridicule someone else who made an absurdly illogical point.

Come again?

You claimed that inexperience (though it isn't hugely relevant as we aren't discussing experience but knowledge and competence) could be beneficial as opposed to experience. Quantify, please.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#87

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 14:55)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:52)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 14:42)
QUOTE (Dale Nixon @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 15:12)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)
Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.

Don't be stupid. You're clearly irritated with me and now you have to resort to twisting my words because I never even implied that. I was talking about possibility, not literal truth or false lies.

No, you made a the claim that in some circumstances individuals who have no grounding in a subject can be more qualified to speak on the issue than subject matter experts by virtue of your suggestion that "sometimes inexperience is the best experience"- which is a bold claim with no real empiricism behind it, and a little bit misleading because we're not discussing experience but understanding and competence; a subject matter expert doesn't necessarily have to possess direct experience in order to be competent as application is distinct from understanding. I merely used your questionable insinuation that I still note you haven't actually supported to ridicule someone else who made an absurdly illogical point.

Come again?

You claimed that inexperience (though it isn't hugely relevant as we aren't discussing experience but knowledge and competence) could be beneficial as opposed to experience. Quantify, please.

OBI-WAN: I am sorry to disturb you, Master.

YODA: What help to you, can I be?

OBI-WAN: I'm looking for a planet described to me by an old
friend. I trust him. But the system doesn't show up on the
archive maps.

YODA: Lost a planet, Master Obi-Wan has. How
embarrassing... how embarrassing. Liam, the shades. An
interesting puzzle. Gather, younglings, around the map
reader. Clear your minds and find Obi-Wan's wayward planet,
we will.

The reader is a small shaft with a hollow opening at the
top. The CHILDREN gather around it. OBI-WAN takes out a
little glass ball and places it into the bowl. The window
shades close, the reader lights up and projects the star
map hologram into the room. The CHILDREN laugh. Some of
them reach up to try and touch the nebulae and stars. OBI-
WAN walks into the display.

OBI-WAN: This is where it ought to be... but it isn't.
Gravity is pulling all the stars in this area inward to
this spot. There should be a star here... but there isn't.

YODA: Most interesting. Gravity's silhouette remains, but
the star and all its planets have disappeared. How can this
be? Now, younglings, in your mind, what is the first thing
you see? An answer? A thought? Anyone?

There is a brief pause. Then a CHILD puts his hand up. YODA
nods.

JEDI CHILD JACK: Master? Because someone erased it from the
archive memory.

OBI-WAN stares; YODA chuckles.

YODA: Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.

WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#88

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:58 PM

I can't believe I used to be into this 9/11 conspiracy bullsh*t. I feel awful just thinking about it now. confused.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#89

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:26 PM

QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Tuesday, Jul 23 2013, 18:58)
I can't believe I used to be into this 9/11 conspiracy bullsh*t. I feel awful just thinking about it now. confused.gif

I can't believe the poster above you quoted Star Wars as if it was at all relevant. That's me told, then.

Ilikehotcrossbuns
  • Ilikehotcrossbuns

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2013

#90

Posted 23 July 2013 - 10:16 PM

QUOTE
Did you just say that Afghanistan (I was referring to the Soviet invasion but both work in the context) and Vietnam weren't counter-insurgency conflicts? They're basically the definition of COIN.


Well let's look at the definiton of COIN, shall we? 'An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents'

Aghanistan in ohhhhhhhhhhh anytime since the 50's was not a counter insurgency as the US was fighting a proxy war with the Soviet Union, even the most biased historian accepts this. The current Afghan war is a simple case of an occupying force invading a country for the purpose of finding a suspected terrorist. Nothing to do with counter insurgency.

As for Vietnam, well sh*t I shouldn't even have to explain that. I'm not going to either.

QUOTE
How else would you typify them given that every strategic theorist in the world has classed them as COIN conflicts. Oh, wait, I completely forgot, you're a new member with zero credibility and no clear qualification on the subject, you must by Dale Nixon's logic therefore be factually right.


Every strategic theorist in the world has not done so. Also, I don't see how the length of time one has been on a grand theft auto forum detracts or supports their claims about war?

QUOTE
I'm also very interested to see you explain which accepted doctrine of strategic theory supports the principle of resource control. Because to my knowledge, the most accepted form of international relations theory amongst nation state authorities and academics are defensive and strategic realism in the style of Robert Jervis and Thomas Schelling respectively, and they both extensively explore the harmful repercussions of obsession about security and inaccurate perceptions of offensive-defensive balance, as well as taking into account the material costs of conflict and the fact that aggression, even amongst the strongest global powers, is usually negative-sum in the long-term due to the destabilising effects of conflict, especially prolonged conflict, causing security escalations in other hostile or neutral powers that weaken any strategic advantage that military incursions may produce in the short term. In short, conflict over resource control only makes sense if that control is actually established, and at a cost less than the spoils of gaining control.


The latter part of this essay, which you entitled 'in short' makes the former part redundant. The only use of the first part of this monstrosity is for you to flex your grammatical muscles and possibly to annoy and scare away those with less grasp of literacy from even replying to you. Stop doing this, it's really annoying and serves no actual purpose.

QUOTE
In a resource conflict that became a counter-insurgency conflict, you'd expect a rational actor whose primary interest was obtaining control over resources to demobilise and cut their losses rapidly as the tolls of war outweighed the possible material gains of their operations- and if you were to propose the "war for resource control" hypothesis on either Iraq or Afghanistan- which is what I presume you're doing, given that you've brought it into the discussion as if it were actually relevant- then you'd meet this standard long before you actually saw demobilisation in both cases. Also, you'd expect to see far more resources placed on maintaining physical control of, and physical security for, resource centres- which we also haven't seen in either case, with the greatest focus quite clearly being on general security.


Again, the Afghan war was not and is not a counter insurgency by any definition. Iraq is slightly different, due to the mess the western world has created in that poor country, but the same premise upholds.

Removing a military presence in Iraq was not possible to to the complete incompetence of the runners of that war, and we very much have seen physical control of resources in Iraq anyway, 100% of all oil exports are now under the control of western oil firms and their subsidiaries. The great focus has quite clearly NOT been on general security. If the Irag situation can be now described as counter insurgency it is because of the gaping hole that the war left in any notion of actual security for that country.

As for the point of 'any rational actor' well you're not dealing with rational people when you are talking about a government with a military and economic power which dwarfs the rest of the world.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jul 22 2013, 17:02)


 

Go back to your V forum playpen.


Grow up.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users