or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 59

post #2321 of 2681

A complete idiot to do this.I am surprised Chinese people have more intelligence than this.
 

post #2322 of 2681

Homelessness rife in UK: Research shows millions are paycheck away from losing home

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2323 of 2681
Thread Starter 

America's poor dig for shelter in newly discovered underground caves-

 

"Police and volunteers from Hope Faith Ministries first visited the camps on Tuesday to advise the residents they had to clear out by Friday. After repeated visits, they encountered only four people, but it was obvious that many others lived there." 

~ http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/05/4164931/underground-homeless-camp-cleared.html

 

Kansas City Underground Homeless Camp

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2324 of 2681
Thread Starter 

Some chilling facts about America's poor-

 

 

"US poverty (less than $17,916 for a family of three): 46.2 million people, 15.1 percent.

Children in poverty: 16.1 million, 22 percent of all children, including 39 percent of African-American children and 34 percent of Latino children. Poorest age group in country.

Deep poverty (less than $11,510 for a family of four): 20.4 million people, 1 in 15 Americans, including more than 15 million women and children.

People who would have been in poverty if not for Social Security, 2011: 67.6 million (program kept 21.4 million people out of poverty).

Gender gap, 2011: Women 34 percent more likely to be poor than men.

Gender gap, 2010: Women 29 percent more likely to be poor than men.

Twice the poverty level (less than $46,042 for a family of four): 106 million people, more than 1 in 3 Americans.

Households with children in large cities that are food-insecure: 25 percent.

People in the US experiencing poverty by age 65: Roughly half.

Jobs in the US paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent.

Jobs in the US paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent.

Poverty-level wages, 2011: 28 percent of workers.

Low-income families that were working in 2011: More than 70 percent.

Families receiving cash assistance, 1996: 68 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Families receiving cash assistance, 2010: 27 for every 100 families living in poverty.

Food stamp recipients with no other cash income: 6.5 million people.

People experiencing homelessness on any given night, US: 643,067.

Children living on streets or in homeless shelters, US: 1.6 million, 42 percent under age 6.

Annual cost of child poverty nationwide: $550 billion."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173255/week-poverty-place-table-and-american-winter

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2325 of 2681
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

A complete idiot to do this.I am surprised Chinese people have more intelligence than this.
 

I'm very relieved you think so too. No one should try this, ever!

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2326 of 2681

The best part of the eel story is the google translation of the Chinese site

 

http://tt.mop.com/read_13612424_1_0.html

post #2327 of 2681
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

The best part of the eel story is the google translation of the Chinese site

 

http://tt.mop.com/read_13612424_1_0.html

Muddled in translation. It seems this Chinese eel isn't the only one causing problems. A bit of a google translate problem? I think I know where RR would tell Geely to shove it!

 


Geely GE Rolls Royce Phantom Clone - Carscoop

http://cdn4.leftlanenews.com/photos/cars/rolls-royce/thumbnails5.0/2013-rolls-royce-phantom-15_318.jpgGeely GERollsSilverLady.jpggeely ge

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2328 of 2681

SHAME ON THE UNITED STATES.This is pathetic indeed for a rich country to have these kind of statistics.
 

post #2329 of 2681
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

SHAME ON THE UNITED STATES.This is pathetic indeed for a rich country to have these kind of statistics.
 

Would you feel sorry for them if you knew most of them were really lazy? That most of them keep voting for Dems so that they don't have to go out and get a job? That most of them have it pretty damn good, indeed flat screen tv's, computer games and free health care? You need to open your eyes and read more Republican hate speech. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2330 of 2681
Thread Starter 

All these fat people stuffing their, and their children's, mouths with junk, and now the healthy one's get penalised. Accomodating these self made and abusive monsters only sends the message that it's ok. I guess all the people making a fortune on junk food, cable, etc will be rattling their jewelry in delight though.

 

"The lack of space on flights has long been a bugbear of British holidaymakers. But now the majority of passengers face aeroplanes with even less wiggle room after manufacturers announced plans to shrink two thirds of seats to make space for overweight travellers."

 

At least one airline is taking the right approach- "The plans come weeks after Samoa Air announced it will become the world’s first airline to charge passengers by their weight rather than per seat.

 

It said the policy had helped to raise obesity awareness and improve public health."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/9991285/Airbus-plans-extra-wide-seats-for-fat-passengers.html

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2331 of 2681

I believe you the ones on welfare are getting away with everything that can attach themselves for free.Liberalism is a Mental Disorder I am getting to think this.Another 10 million illegals and do what kiss their asses and let the rest of us stand in back of the line. Screw That! I am a Liberal but I am thinking differently from what I am seeing now and what is happening in the states.
 

post #2332 of 2681
Thread Starter 

Good article on some of Lady Thatcher's positive achievements. Credit where credits due.-

 

"According to the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), the state companies went from costing the Treasury an average of £300m each a year in subsidies to contributing between £3.3bn and £5.8bn a year in corporation tax from 1987 onwards.

British Steel needed £1bn of Treasury support in 1980 on a turnover of £3bn, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records for inefficiency. Soon after privatisation it was profitable and contributing £200m a year in taxes.

British Telecom had a £300m cash injection in 1980; in 1995 it paid £1.1bn to the Exchequer.

The consumer also benefited. By 1995, domestic gas prices fell 25pc and commercial gas costs were 50pc lower. Telecoms charges fell by 40pc and airport charges dropped 10pc."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9992136/How-Thatcher-brought-UK-back-from-the-wilderness.html


Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/13/13 at 1:56pm
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2333 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Good article on some of Lady Thatcher's positive achievements. Credit where credits due.-

 

"According to the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), the state companies went from costing the Treasury an average of £300m each a year in subsidies to contributing between £3.3bn and £5.8bn a year in corporation tax from 1987 onwards.

British Steel needed £1bn of Treasury support in 1980 on a turnover of £3bn, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records for inefficiency. Soon after privatisation it was profitable and contributing £200m a year in taxes.

British Telecom had a £300m cash injection in 1980; in 1995 it paid £1.1bn to the Exchequer.

The consumer also benefited. By 1995, domestic gas prices fell 25pc and commercial gas costs were 50pc lower. Telecoms charges fell by 40pc and airport charges dropped 10pc."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9992136/How-Thatcher-brought-UK-back-from-the-wilderness.html

What do you expect from the Torygraph?

 

"domestic gas prices fell 25pc"  Since the 1987 privatisation, gas prices have increased by approximately 280%.

 

I suspect that the rest of their stats are bollox.

 

Ding Dong...

post #2334 of 2681
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

What do you expect from the Torygraph?

 

"domestic gas prices fell 25pc"  Since the 1987 privatisation, gas prices have increased by approximately 280%.

 

I suspect that the rest of their stats are bollox.

 

Ding Dong...

Since she came to power the UK economy is now 8 times bigger, so keep that in mind, and also that she dramatically reduced inflation. She also reduced government debt, and in my opinion was right on Europe. There undoubtedly was good and bad, but she deserves credit for what she got right.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2335 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Since she came to power the UK economy is now 8 times bigger, so keep that in mind, and also that she dramatically reduced inflation. She also reduced government debt, and in my opinion was right on Europe. There undoubtedly was good and bad, but she deserves credit for what she got right.

 

At the start of her reign, inflation was 18% when she was pushed out it was 10%.

 

Not sure how you are measuring the size of the economy but I do concede that she may well have helped the UK economy become more flexible.

 

IMO she did more harm than good and could easily have made the transition from a rigid labour market far less painful.

post #2336 of 2681

Ever been to Samoa obesity reigns there quite a bit.
 

post #2337 of 2681
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2338 of 2681

Every time there's an incident like this, motivation must be the first thing to consider..ie who stands to gain by this?

 

 

In the past, governments in democratic nations, for example the UK etc. had a VERY different attitude as regards terrorism; the response being typically as follows: "We will not permit these maniacs to destroy our way of life and take away the freedoms we all enjoy. We shall remain on guard and vigilant of course, report suspicious looking objects, but we shall refuse to let these crazies get what they want, and win". This was in response to acts of terrorism by REAL terrorist groups with causes, regardless of how misled, who bombed targets with regularity, on account of their having an active membership, such as ETA, or the Provisional IRA.
 
Governments now tend to respond in a different way, by giving the terrorists (whoever they may be), exactly what they want, by taking away our rights and liberties, imposing a maximum security surveillance society despite the fact that no amount of security can deter bombers who select "soft" targets. Those in authority are getting more paranoid by the year and as a society we becoming afraid of our own shadows. The corporate media compounds the effect of terror but constant coverage, and reiterating the threats, whether real or imaginary.
 
It makes one wonder whether governments and terrorist organizations have rather more in common that firest meets the eye. In today's case, the attack coincides with Patriot Day in Boston, even though it is not celebrated until April 19. Could this be a false flag attack to demonize the US Patriot Movement, ie people mostly aligned the rightwing or conservative causes, such as supporters of the 2nd Amendment etc? Perhaps the program to turn the US population against Muslims has been milked enough, and a change of flavor is required, to "freshen up" the so called "war on terrorism"?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2339 of 2681

Sickening seeing comments flying on the internet blaming this on Muslims.

post #2340 of 2681

Not again. 1mad.gif There was a security "drill" going on. Isnt this pretty normal before major terrorist attacks in recent years?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2341 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Sickening seeing comments flying on the internet blaming this on Muslims.

 

Standard procedure. We've been indoctrinated for 60 years by the media, Hollywood, government agencies and others, that Muslims are ALL evil, inferior, and terrorists. It has become a very easy Pavlovian style sell, regarding pinning blame on Muslims for any terrorist incident; they are the demographic we have been taught to blame, taught to hate, taught to demonize, and taught to regard with every aspect of negativity. Terrorist attack = automatic knee-jerk response by public to blame Muslims/Arabs. As a population, we comfortable with having this perpetual scapegoat, regardless of its reality, or fabricated history.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2342 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Every time there's an incident like this, motivation must be the first thing to consider..ie who stands to gain by this?

 

 

In the past, governments in democratic nations, for example the UK etc. had a VERY different attitude as regards terrorism; the response being typically as follows: "We will not permit these maniacs to destroy our way of life and take away the freedoms we all enjoy. We shall remain on guard and vigilant of course, report suspicious looking objects, but we shall refuse to let these crazies get what they want, and win". This was in response to acts of terrorism by REAL terrorist groups with causes, regardless of how misled, who bombed targets with regularity, on account of their having an active membership, such as ETA, or the Provisional IRA.
 
Governments now tend to respond in a different way, by giving the terrorists (whoever they may be), exactly what they want, by taking away our rights and liberties, imposing a maximum security surveillance society despite the fact that no amount of security can deter bombers who select "soft" targets. Those in authority are getting more paranoid by the year and as a society we becoming afraid of our own shadows. The corporate media compounds the effect of terror but constant coverage, and reiterating the threats, whether real or imaginary.
 
It makes one wonder whether governments and terrorist organizations have rather more in common that firest meets the eye. In today's case, the attack coincides with Patriot Day in Boston, even though it is not celebrated until April 19. Could this be a false flag attack to demonize the US Patriot Movement, ie people mostly aligned the rightwing or conservative causes, such as supporters of the 2nd Amendment etc? Perhaps the program to turn the US population against Muslims has been milked enough, and a change of flavor is required, to "freshen up" the so called "war on terrorism"?

 

That was a good post until you went off the rails in the last paragraph. But that aside, on the question of appropriate response it is clear that the assumption of risk has changed substantially. I wonder how much is simply driven by the increased litigiousness of the modern US, where any hint of negligence by government or LE triggers an avalanche of lawsuits.

post #2343 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That was a good post until you went off the rails in the last paragraph. But that aside, on the question of appropriate response it is clear that the assumption of risk has changed substantially. I wonder how much is simply driven by the increased litigiousness of the modern US, where any hint of negligence by government or LE triggers an avalanche of lawsuits.

 

I wouldn't exactly describe the notion of the possibility of a false flag attack as "going off the rails". Such tactics have been used by governments of all stripes and nationalities, including ours, to shock a nation's public into getting behind a government, or an agenda:

Whenever there's a terrorist incident, its is singularly inappropriate to discount the false flag possibility, (which is usually done by employing the 4th grade tactic of lobbing "conspiracy theorist" ad hominems) - especially if the all important motivation factor points to such. There are many proven examples abound, which I am sure you must be aware of: Some of the more famous ones include

 

* Gulf of Tonkin incident - we were lied to to start a war in Vietnam

* 1970s Red Brigades attacks in Europe - blamed on lefties, set up by CIA etc

* Operation Northwoods - planned by the joint chiefs in 1962 to hijack planes and bomb US targets,  blame Cubans, to justify an invasion and war against Cuba.

* Operation Ajax, Iran

* Lavon Affair (set up by Israel to blame Arabs)

* Reichstag fire (set by the Nazis, to blame socialists)

* Project Cherry (Cambodia, set by CIA)

* Operation Mongoose - CIA setting up attacks in the US to blame Cuba

 This is the tip of the iceberg... there are many, many more. The majority of the public remain unaware of the technique, as its NEVER, EVER mentioned by the corporate media.


Edited by sammi jo - 4/15/13 at 7:30pm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2344 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That was a good post until you went off the rails in the last paragraph. But that aside, on the question of appropriate response it is clear that the assumption of risk has changed substantially. I wonder how much is simply driven by the increased litigiousness of the modern US, where any hint of negligence by government or LE triggers an avalanche of lawsuits.

 

I wouldn't exactly describe the notion of the possibility of a false flag attack as "going off the rails". Such tactics have been used by governments of all stripes and nationalities, including ours, to shock a nation's public into getting behind a government, or an agenda:

Whenever there's a terrorist incident, its is singularly inappropriate to discount the false flag possibility, (which is usually done by employing the 4th grade tactic of lobbing "conspiracy theorist" ad hominems) - especially if the all important motivation factor points to such. There are many proven examples abound, which I am sure you must be aware of: Some of the more famous ones include

 

* Gulf of Tonkin incident - we were lied to to start a war in Vietnam

* 1970s Red Brigades attacks in Europe - blamed on lefties, set up by CIA etc

* Operation Northwoods - planned by the joint chiefs in 1962 to hijack planes and bomb US targets,  blame Cubans, to justify an invasion and war against Cuba.

* Operation Ajax, Iran

* Lavon Affair (set up by Israel to blame Arabs)

* Reichstag fire (set by the Nazis, to blame socialists)

* Project Cherry (Cambodia, set by CIA)

* Operation Mongoose - CIA setting up attacks in the US to blame Cuba

 This is the tip of the iceberg... there are many, many more. The majority of the public remain unaware of the technique, as its NEVER, EVER mentioned by the corporate media.

 

They may be tip of an iceberg, but I don't think it's the iceberg that you would like it to be. Firstly, doesn't it seem odd that not one of your examples was an actual false flag operation on US soil?  Northwoods was the closest, but rejected, as one would hope it would be, by the administration. The rest are covert operations abroad by various governments except for Tonkin (misreported military action) and Reichstag (possibly, but not certainly, a Nazi false flag incident).

 

It's easy to argue that it is inappropriate to discount any possibility when faced with these kinds of event, but what history does show is that the overwhelming majority of these kinds of conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. 

 

Do you have any examples of the US Government carrying out false flag operations on US soil? Some of the "proven examples" that "abound" would be a good start, since you forgot to list any of those.

post #2345 of 2681

I had hoped this discussion would be sympathetic for awhile, before we dived into the political stuff.

 

Tonton, "comments on the internet" isn't exactly where you look for balanced, reasonable discussion of any issue.

Especially not two hours into a bombing.

 

Sammi, where do I start? 1oyvey.gif

 

There are a couple hundred government-affiliated security organizations in the U.S. charged with protecting the homeland now.

I figure at least one of them is charged with transporting bomb-sniffing dogs and personnel to major U.S. sporting events. Enough already.

 

And could you elaborate on why a domestic false flag operation would do the Obama administration - or U.S. security interests - any good?

Because it's not like they're hurting for funding or anything. And Obama's not going to invade Iran or NK in retaliation for a Boston Marathon bombing.

 

And nobody is going to believe that the Tea Party is responsible for this event. It's not a government target.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2346 of 2681
Just my opinion, but I doubt this was a coordinated attack. It was a single culprit who found a bomb recipe on the Internet. As to their motivation? What's the motivation for most of the nut jobs in the US who carry out heinous acts these days?
post #2347 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just my opinion, but I doubt this was a coordinated attack. It was a single culprit who found a bomb recipe on the Internet. As to their motivation? What's the motivation for most of the nut jobs in the US who carry out heinous acts these days?

 

Not sure about coordinated, but functional, detonable devices are not that easy to make. From the videos that I've seen I suspect someone with some experience was involved.

post #2348 of 2681

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


 

They may be tip of an iceberg, but I don't think it's the iceberg that you would like it to be.

 

The type of iceberg that "I would like it to be"? Just WTF is that supposed to mean? If you think that I "enjoy the possibility that our government, to whom I pay taxes, employs such methods using (my) hard earned income", try again. You are 110% out of line here.

 

Firstly, doesn't it seem odd that not one of your examples was an actual false flag operation on US soil?  Northwoods was the closest, but rejected, as one would hope it would be, by the administration. The rest are covert operations abroad by various governments except for Tonkin (misreported military action) and Reichstag (possibly, but not certainly, a Nazi false flag incident).

 

Its less messy to keep such activity away from US soil, for obvious reasons. Regarding attacks, or attempted attacks on US soil, there are many that remain unresolved, if one takes hard science, hard evidence and witness testimony into consideration. Unfortunately in this country, the mainstream media - being what it is, always fails to report evenhandedly on such events, and those who take up the slack are always the alternative media. It is very easy, and it massages our collective comfort zone, to castigate anything outside of the MSM as "unreliable", and the discussion gets trashed at the hands of those who always defer to authority opinion. The usual troll technique is to invoke infantile "conspiracy theory" accusations; one could name this syndrome "Godwin's Second Law". Bearing that in mind, I shall refrain from quoting actual examples of *violent* false flag events on US soil, in the knowledge and expectation that many people are not prepared to enter a mature and rational discussion on the topic. If you can prove me wrong on this latter point, I will willingly discuss false flag attacks on US soil, using the scientific method and hard evidence only.

 

There are many variations on the false flag technique... Tonkin, for example, involved no form of actual violence... it was reported violence that did not happen, to get the public behind war in Vietnam. Such things do not need to happen on US soil to have the desired effect... more recent examples include the lies and fabrications told by the Bush Sr. Administration using the PR firm Hill Knowlton to get the otherwise reluctant US public behind Desert Storm. Before this broadcast, only a minority of the US public were for US involvement in Kuwait; afterwards, 90% of we outraged citizens were gung ho.

Another was the use of the fabricating a link between Iraq and al Qaeda to get the support of the American public to invade Iraq, by further scaring the US public, psychologically "shocked and awed" by the events of a year previously.

Another variation is here: the Bush Blair memo, in whuich a plan for a pretext to invade Iraq was floated, despite the fact that war with Iraq was already a certainty, WMDs or no WMDs 

 

It's easy to argue that it is inappropriate to discount any possibility when faced with these kinds of event, but what history does show is that the overwhelming majority of these kinds of conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. 

 

Uh oh... here we go... the CT phrase has cropped up. How disappointing,  but I guess it has to be expected in the current climate. Incidentally, If conspiracy theories are always as false and ridiculous as the mainstream media would have you believe, then why are millions of people charged with conspiring to commit crimes every year? A conspiracy, btw, is "a plan by two or more people to commit a criminal act." Many major crimes are committed by at least two people....

 

Do you have any examples of the US Government carrying out false flag operations on US soil? Some of the "proven examples" that "abound" would be a good start, since you forgot to list any of those...

 

See above.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2349 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Just my opinion, but I doubt this was a coordinated attack. It was a single culprit who found a bomb recipe on the Internet. As to their motivation? What's the motivation for most of the nut jobs in the US who carry out heinous acts these days?

 

It could be domestic - referencing April 15 as 'Tax Day' - though the choice of targets would be strange.

 

It could be foreign - referencing Patriots Day and a substitute to the previous cancellation of the New York Marathon (which is why there was a heightened alert at this event.)

 

At this point we don't know. The Saudi national being questioned could just be an innocent bystander who got tackled by overzealous civilians.

 

If it's domestic or foreign terror isn't the biggest problem right now. There are likely thousands of people working on that. I think our focus should be on the victims.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2350 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


 

They may be tip of an iceberg, but I don't think it's the iceberg that you would like it to be.

 

The type of iceberg that "I would like it to be"? Just WTF is that supposed to mean? If you think that I "enjoy the possibility that our government, to whom I pay taxes, employs such methods using (my) hard earned income", try again. You are 110% out of line here.

 

Firstly, doesn't it seem odd that not one of your examples was an actual false flag operation on US soil?  Northwoods was the closest, but rejected, as one would hope it would be, by the administration. The rest are covert operations abroad by various governments except for Tonkin (misreported military action) and Reichstag (possibly, but not certainly, a Nazi false flag incident).

 

Its less messy to keep such activity away from US soil, for obvious reasons. Regarding attacks, or attempted attacks on US soil, there are many that remain unresolved, if one takes hard science, hard evidence and witness testimony into consideration. Unfortunately in this country, the mainstream media - being what it is, always fails to report evenhandedly on such events, and those who take up the slack are always the alternative media. It is very easy, and it massages our collective comfort zone, to castigate anything outside of the MSM as "unreliable", and the discussion gets trashed at the hands of those who always defer to authority opinion. The usual troll technique is to invoke infantile "conspiracy theory" accusations; one could name this syndrome "Godwin's Second Law". Bearing that in mind, I shall refrain from quoting actual examples of *violent* false flag events on US soil, in the knowledge and expectation that many people are not prepared to enter a mature and rational discussion on the topic. If you can prove me wrong on this latter point, I will willingly discuss false flag attacks on US soil, using the scientific method and hard evidence only.

 

There are many variations on the false flag technique... Tonkin, for example, involved no form of actual violence... it was reported violence that did not happen, to get the public behind war in Vietnam. Such things do not need to happen on US soil to have the desired effect... more recent examples include the lies and fabrications told by the Bush Sr. Administration using the PR firm Hill Knowlton to get the otherwise reluctant US public behind Desert Storm. Before this broadcast, only a minority of the US public were for US involvement in Kuwait; afterwards, 90% of we outraged citizens were gung ho.

Another was the use of the fabricating a link between Iraq and al Qaeda to get the support of the American public to invade Iraq, by further scaring the US public, psychologically "shocked and awed" by the events of a year previously.

Another variation is here: the Bush Blair memo, in whuich a plan for a pretext to invade Iraq was floated, despite the fact that war with Iraq was already a certainty, WMDs or no WMDs 

 

It's easy to argue that it is inappropriate to discount any possibility when faced with these kinds of event, but what history does show is that the overwhelming majority of these kinds of conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. 

 

Uh oh... here we go... the CT phrase has cropped up. How disappointing,  but I guess it has to be expected in the current climate. Incidentally, If conspiracy theories are always as false and ridiculous as the mainstream media would have you believe, then why are millions of people charged with conspiring to commit crimes every year? A conspiracy, btw, is "a plan by two or more people to commit a criminal act." Many major crimes are committed by at least two people....

 

Do you have any examples of the US Government carrying out false flag operations on US soil? Some of the "proven examples" that "abound" would be a good start, since you forgot to list any of those...

 

See above.

 

Since none of your examples fits the category, I'll take that as confirmation that you know of no false flag attacks by a US Government on US soil. But you think this is? Don't you just get tired of constantly being wrong?

post #2351 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Since none of your examples fits the category, I'll take that as confirmation that you know of no false flag attacks by a US Government on US soil. But you think this is? Don't you just get tired of constantly being wrong?

 

I guess your aim is to drag the discussion into the puerile/infantile category that I mentioned earlier. There are plenty of examples of *possible* or even *probable* false flag events on US soil; events which have not been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion, in which there remains evidence of malfeasance by entities or rogue elements within the US authorities/military/intelligence community/FBI etc. In your effort to defer to authority or mainstream media opinion, you have steered clear of mature discussion. 

 

If you really wish to have a rational discussion, I will most certainly take you on. But you have slammed the door closed, and you already come perilously close to throwing an ad hominem. This is not a good indication that you are are willing to discuss this in a fair and even-handed way. I refuse to get involved in troll talk.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2352 of 2681

A lone madman you think did this horrific act of violence? We shall see pretty soon the real answer.
 

post #2353 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

A lone madman you think did this horrific act of violence? We shall see pretty soon the real answer.
 

aren't most mass killers in the USA lone nutters

 

?

post #2354 of 2681
Most Muslim extremist attacks in the west use suicide bombers.

I remember growing up in England in the late 70s and 80s. Bin bombs were the standard tactic of the IRA. I believe Eta widely used this tactic too.

My sympathies go out to the victims, no matter who did this.
post #2355 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Since none of your examples fits the category, I'll take that as confirmation that you know of no false flag attacks by a US Government on US soil. But you think this is? Don't you just get tired of constantly being wrong?

 

I guess your aim is to drag the discussion into the puerile/infantile category that I mentioned earlier. There are plenty of examples of *possible* or even *probable* false flag events on US soil; events which have not been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion, in which there remains evidence of malfeasance by entities or rogue elements within the US authorities/military/intelligence community/FBI etc. In your effort to defer to authority or mainstream media opinion, you have steered clear of mature discussion. 

 

If you really wish to have a rational discussion, I will most certainly take you on. But you have slammed the door closed, and you already come perilously close to throwing an ad hominem. This is not a good indication that you are are willing to discuss this in a fair and even-handed way. I refuse to get involved in troll talk.

 

It's not very tenable to claim that you are trying to have a rational discussion but that I'm spoiling it. So far you have alleged that false flag operations are common, but failed to provide a single example that in any way resembles this event - US government action against its own citizens in the US. All I've done is point out that rather glaring hole in your argument. And your response is that I'm "deferring to authority" and that I've come "perilously close to throwing an ad hom", whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess it means that I didn't, but that since I'm actually just deferring to common sense it's the best you could come up with to deflect attention from your total lack of an argument.

 

And now you appear to be saying that while you don't have any proven examples at all, there are plenty of possible ones, by which, of course, you mean alleged examples and we are back to the fantasy world of conspiracy theory. Let me guess - 9/11 is one of those "examples". In my opinion, in throwing inflammatory and unfounded accusations about the provenance of this event, you fit the definition of troll far better than I.

post #2356 of 2681
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It's not very tenable to claim that you are trying to have a rational discussion but that I'm spoiling it. So far you have alleged that false flag operations are common, but failed to provide a single example that in any way resembles this event - US government action against its own citizens in the US. All I've done is point out that rather glaring hole in your argument. And your response is that I'm "deferring to authority" and that I've come "perilously close to throwing an ad hom", whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess it means that I didn't, but that since I'm actually just deferring to common sense it's the best you could come up with to deflect attention from your total lack of an argument.

 

And now you appear to be saying that while you don't have any proven examples at all, there are plenty of possible ones, by which, of course, you mean alleged examples and we are back to the fantasy world of conspiracy theory. Let me guess - 9/11 is one of those "examples". In my opinion, in throwing inflammatory and unfounded accusations about the provenance of this event, you fit the definition of troll far better than I.

 

There's an obvious reason why I haven't included any proven examples of false flag attacks domestically: A false flag operation is the perfect crime; by its nature, authorized at the highest level, it ensures that the perps are protected while the designated patsies get the rap. Since when has the FBI (or other law enforcement agency) ever brought charges against members of another government agency, especially senior personnel who might have authorized an event of that nature? It's not going to happen, ever. Perhaps you feel that all personnel employed within government agencies and the military/intelligence community are so angelic in nature that such nefarious activities would never be considered? Perhaps this is how you view the world?

 

You bring up 9/11 of course, but fail to mention that what we were told about that event is also a conspiracy theory - a pretty wild one at that - in that it encompasses improbabilities and unlikelihoods (even violations of the laws of nature) that are too bizarre even for a badly scripted Hollywood B-movie. 9/11 was never properly investigated: here are some details of the 9/11 Commission, including some quotes from senior commission staff:

 

 

(1) The Bush Administration refused to authorize any inquiry for 441 days (a most unexpected non-reaction), as well as taking the extraordinary step of appointing Henry Kissinger as Commission chairman, who subsequently resigned the position because he refused to reveal his client list. Once the inquiry was authorized with extreme reluctance on the part of the Bush White House, they promised it would be the fullest investigation "no stones to be left unturned". Unfortunately, according to the most senior Commissioners, this was far from the case.

 

(2) The Bush White House did everything in its power to derail an open inquiry. Then, when faced with its inevitability, the president and his aides sought to limit its scope, its access and its funding.

 

(3) John Farmer, the lead counsel to the Commission, claims that the greater part of the Commission's findings "are untrue". He also states: “The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation". Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.

 

John Farmer also said:  "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

 

(4) 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

 

(5) 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting".

 

(6) 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up",” and also “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.

 

(7) The intimidation of witnesses in a criminal trial is a very serious offense. Throughout the 9/11 Commission hearings, Government "minders" aggressively intimidated Commission witnesses on a wholesale basis, with impunity.

 

(8) CIA chief Tenet demonstrably lied to the Commissioners in closed session meetings.

 

9) Despite the common awareness in the intelligence and law enforcement community that torture is a counterproductive method of obtaining worthwhile information, the huge majority of the Commission's "evidence" was extracted by torturing supposed suspects. 

 

(10) Former VP Cheney provably lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his movements and whereabouts in the critical period of time shortly after the attacks started. 

 

(11) After both President Bush and VP Cheney initially refused to testify to the Commission under oath, their testimony was secret, behind closed doors, no cameras or transcripts allowed, and no questions by reporters. Does "executive privilege" extend to this degree of obfuscation?

 

(12) A document recently discovered in the National Archives shows that, in a memo to the 9/11 Commission’s chairman and vice-chairman on false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials about the failure of US air defenses, the commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow failed to mention the possibility of a criminal referral. This supports allegations that Zelikow “buried” the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation. 

 

(13) The overwhelming proportion of evidence, some 90% heard by the Commission was not included in the Commission's final report; this report has been described as a classic example of "dry labbing". In scientific circles this means "starting out with a theory, which you then prove by omitting all contrary material. The responsibility for this fiasco clearly fell with the Commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, a Bush White House official, who determined which material was to be published, and which was to be ignored and erased. 

 

(14) Both 9/11 Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton haves stated publicly that the 9/11 Commission was "deliberately set up to fail" by the Bush/Cheney White House. 

 

etc. etc.

 

I'll stop here, for now. Notice that I am not blaming anyone for 9/11. I hope you can comprehend that. I have quoted government officials, and omitted what independent (and probably more impartial) investigators might have discovered. Does stating some facts and asking some questions render me a "conspiracy theorist"?  Does not automatically snapping to attention to blame the fashionably-hated Muslims render me a "conspiracy theorist"? In some peoples' illogical world, I guess so, if such questions and fact-stating fail to conform to the official mandate. Remember that what we have been told about how 9/11 happened was extracted using torture, and thus not legally qualified as evidence in a real US court of law? 

 

To get me to acknowledge what we were told about 9/11 requires material of more verifiable nature than single sourced material derived via torture. And that is the tip of the iceberg.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2357 of 2681
Oops. Looks like it may have been a sabotaged drill, or some imbecile who used live ordinance where a bomb was supposed to be a dummy.

Tweeted by the Boston Globe 2 hours before the tragedy:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/323886829596205056
Quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Police will have controlled explosion on 600 block on Boylston Street
3:53am - 16 Apr 13
post #2358 of 2681

Possibility it was a lone wolf.

 

The article even sorta suggests far right-wingers in the US have adopted this type of bomb.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/16/us/boston-marathon-lone-wolf/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2359 of 2681
post #2360 of 2681

I blame the internet on a lot of things happening now where these atrocities are happening much to often. These sites where you can learn to build bombs should be taken down right away, This kind of sites where unheard of years ago when the internet started to emerge.Hopefully this sicko will be caught asap before more damage will be inflicted upon others in other states and in other events.Obama start to do something now!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.