|
Tea Party Republican Terrorists Plant Bomb in NYC (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MGT |
  |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
Looks like a CIA Agent. ;)
America should execute this guy. |
|
|
| leph555 |
| He looks like that guy from the forum... |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
There has to be some middle ground, unless its your position that “the government” always lies about everything (clearly a ridiculous viewpoint) |
It's very easy to lie about a lot of things, and then say some other things that sound like the truth, so people think you're only lying about a few things. Nearly everyone does it.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
You know as well as I do that the situation is far more complex and not nearly as black and white as this hippy buffoon is attempting to illustrate. |
Simplify...maaaan!
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
It's very easy to lie about a lot of things, and then say some other things that sound like the truth, so people think you're only lying about a few things. Nearly everyone does it. |
What a member of the house supposedly lies about has no bearing on the supposed lies of another member, nor does a supposed lie by an official from a government department have any bearing on the supposed lie from another official in some other department. Each and every claim has to be evaluated on its own merits, and it is completely illogical to use past indiscretions with the truth by an unrelated party as evidence against somebody else.. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| It's also completely illogical to treat people like assets, but somehow that made it into the realm of acceptable behaviour. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
What a member of the house supposedly lies about has no bearing on the supposed lies of another member, nor does a supposed lie by an official from a government department have any bearing on the supposed lie from another official in some other department. Each and every claim has to be evaluated on its own merits, and it is completely illogical to use past indiscretions with the truth by an unrelated party as evidence against somebody else.. |
Just to add to what's already well put, but you've essentially addressed a poisonous well logical fallacy. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Just to add to what's already well put, but you've essentially addressed a poisonous well logical fallacy. |
Don’t you use your fancy logic on me!! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
It's also completely illogical to treat people like assets, but somehow that made it into the realm of acceptable behaviour. |
:stongue: superb response. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
What the does the Nazi's invading Poland have to do with ANYTHING? |
I still want an answer. You throw out random articles from the past all the time for no ing reason at all. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Don’t you use your fancy logic on me!! :p
|
Pot. Kettle. Black. :toothless |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Meritocracy is where it's at, bro. |
Oh, if only that were possible :( |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
America should execute this guy. |
You first.
Funny, he looks like about a 1/2 dozen people in my neighbourhood. Now I guess I'm going to have to be suspiscious of even more people, dammit.
The Nazis invading Poland doesn't have anything to do with this, it's the media's distortion of the truth. So in the NYT, the purging of 3 million Jews from Poland is quoted as being beneficial and it's glibly mentioned that the press can't figure out how the Germans are going to complete this undertaking without exterminating the lot of them. And American corporations had no issue with profiting from this "purge", even when they were supposedly on the opposing side in the war.
Pretty far-fetched to think that America might have been considerably more complicit in the orchestration of WWII than believed, huh?
Now we have our Times Square bombaman being paraded around by the press and because we've been told by the ever-trusty worthy gov't and corporate media that this is the guy, we've caught him, end of story, I have to buy it verbatim?
On another board, I posited that this sitch may not be exactly as it seems, and someone expressed what I was trying to convey in words that might make a little more sense to that gigantoid, complex noggin of yours.
| quote: | agree that doesnt appear to be an inside job. though we must consider the various levels of complicity up the chain of command. who knew about this or other such attack and at what level of authority were they to stop such actions or at least inform the right intelligence agencies of it?
the reason these events stand out is because collective rage which terms like "muslim rage" imply are incomplete, inaccurate and stereotypical. they exist to promote the image of muslims as Pavlovian, and full of "rage" and "hatred" towards perceived colonial oppressors and isreal. im not suggesting you view the vastly complex world of muslim states in such a way, i just see this as an all too common precept that somehow "muslims" follow this mathematical equation from oppression to rage to jihad.
we have many more examples of jihadi violence committed by Muslims against their own governments (algeria is a recent example of this). historically, violence committed in western nations by "radicalized" muslims living in nations under oppression/occupation by colonial forces has been a tiny fraction compared to what has occured during the many revolutions, civil wars and uprisings in the mid-east, east africa and south asia since WW2.
again, the current nations most under the thumb of what we could call post-colonial oppression/occupation seem to be the most unlikely source of radicalized call to arms outside their state. we have ample examples of middle class educated muslims who appeared to be the benefactors materially from corrupt regimes turn to violence on any material scale. but as of late it has emerged from south-asia by people who thus far have no actual connection to the war in afghanistan, dont report family or friends killed or gravely affected by the war (the toronto 18 had no accounts of being directly affected by the wars and hadnt gone to actually fight).
what i suspect is the source of this is youthful rage that always looks for an outlet, deserving or not and is exploited by truly extreme groups for these types of operations as those that occur within their own borders appear to be of a different nature all together.
my larger point is that so few people who express this typical "rage" ever actually turn to violence, and even fewer of them direct it towards foreign targets outside their home state, that i find it difficult to draw any real parallel between what is happening in pakistan and the current truck bomber suspect. of course we see a general connection and of course we can appreciate why they would be angry. its justifiable to be filled with resentment and rage. but if so few ever actually make the jump to violence of this sort, perhaps the relationship isnt related in any material way.
its like saying peanuts are deadly because 1 in 10,000,000 people die if they eat a peanut. are peanuts truly the problem, or is it a type of genetic disposition that creates the environment where an allergy can result in death? |
|
|
|
|
|
