LAX Shooting: Police Trained For Exact Scenerio 3 Weeks Prior

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

:rolleyes:


LAX Shooting: Police trained for 'exact scenario' 3 weeks ago

Los Angeles - The rapid police response to today's deadly shooting at a terminal in the Los Angeles Int'l Airport (LAX) was no accident, according to LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon, because his officers prepared for an event identical to the shooting weeks in advance.

"We practiced to this not more than 3 weeks ago," said Gannon at a press conference hours after the shooting. "We took every one of our patrol officers and a couple hundred officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and we practiced the exact scenario we played out today."

IYWY5LdJioQ

Photographs of the training exercise were published on October 18 on the Facebook page for Team LAX, which is the official sports and events page for the LAX police. The images from the drill show police officers drawing semi-automatic rifles in an simulated attempt to eliminate hostile threats and lead air travelers to safety. Officers at the Ontario, California airport conducted similar active shooter drills earlier in the month.

According to Gannon, the practice helped ensure that the threat posed by the shooter was neutralized before he could increase the body count. "I was talking to the officers involved in this particular incident a few minutes ago, and they said that that training was critical to how they responded to this," he added.

This isn't the first time that a gunman has opened fire inside an LAX terminal. In July 2002, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a member of the Muslim brotherhood, shot and killed 2 people at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at LAX and wounded four others before El Al security officer Chaim Sapir gunned him down.

The connection between today's airport shooting and the drills that preceded it is also reminiscent of the circumstances surrounding the 7/7 London transit bombing in 2005. Hours after the attack, British crisis management specialist Peter Power told ITV news that his company, Visor Consultants, was performing a simulation of the bombing of the London subway and bus system at the same time as the real incident occurred. "We based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on the underground and mainline station," he explained, "so we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real." The company that Visor was consulting for at the time of the bombing has not been disclosed.

link (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/361365)

[Slavic]

These training scenarios happen all the time; the fact that the LAX Security was running an active shooter scenario weeks before a real active shooter event is just coincidental.

I'm in the air national guard and yearly we run an active shooter exercise, and every other year a deployment/war contingency scenario.

[Sasha]

These training scenarios happen all the time; the fact that the LAX Security was running an active shooter scenario weeks before a real active shooter event is just coincidental.

i wouldn't dare to call it coincidental anymore, between the by now clockwork of people snapping and going on shooting spree's in the US and the intense hatred of the TSA it was an given that this would happen sooner than later. so yeah, i would go for the phrase "accurate probability assessment" ...

[Slavic]

i wouldn't dare to call it coincidental anymore, between the by now clockwork of people snapping and going on shooting spree's in the US and the intense hatred of the TSA it was an given that this would happen sooner than later. so yeah, i would go for the phrase "accurate probability assessment" ...

I understand where you are coming from, the original article just seemed to me as if it were reaching for a direct connection between the two or at least that's the impression I got. Its obvious that any active shooter exercise is going to be modeled after the most probable scenario possible.

[Sasha]

Oh, I wasn't having a digg at you, I was going after both the conspiracy shouters and US society who makes shit like this happening an given.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

These training scenarios happen all the time; the fact that the LAX Security was running an active shooter scenario weeks before a real active shooter event is just coincidental.


The DC police did a simulation for the exact same scenario as the shooting that just took place; same for the Boston bomb squad, same for 9/11 (l"Hypothetical Attack Scenario 404"), same for the Aurora shooting, same for....

Sure are a lot of coincidences.

[Slavic]

The DC police did a simulation for the exact same scenario as the shooting that just took place; same for the Boston bomb squad, same for 9/11 (l"Hypothetical Attack Scenario 404"), same for the Aurora shooting, same for....

Sure are a lot of coincidences.

You are only seeing what is on the surface. Every, and I mean EVERY half decent law enforcement agency runs simulations like these all the time. It is only when a shooting indecent like LAX shooting occurs that the public and the media start noticing the scenarios that these police run, hence the coincidence.

Are you implying that law enforcement knew that these specific shooting/bombing incedents were going to happen and they were just practicing for when that date occurred?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You are only seeing what is on the surface. Every, and I mean EVERY half decent law enforcement agency runs simulations like these all the time. It is only when a shooting indecent like LAX shooting occurs that the public and the media start noticing the scenarios that these police run, hence the coincidence.

Mhmm.


Are you implying that law enforcement knew that these specific shooting/bombing incedents were going to happen and they were just practicing for when that date occurred?

I'm suggesting that these were rehearsals performed by actors which went live. Every good play is rehearsed to death.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The DC police did a simulation for the exact same scenario as the shooting that just took place; same for the Boston bomb squad, same for 9/11 (l"Hypothetical Attack Scenario 404"), same for the Aurora shooting, same for....

Sure are a lot of coincidences.

So we have to chose between ... police departments deciding, in an age of modern terrorism and mass shootings, training against terrorist attacks, and then an attack coincidentally happening after one of these (now frequent) training exercises, or ... ZOMG NWO conzpiracy!!!!1!!

IMO a police department tasked with defending a major piece of infrastructure in a major city would be stupid NOT to train how to respond to a mass shooting or bombing

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So we have to chose between ... police departments deciding, in an age of modern terrorism and mass shootings, training against terrorist attacks, and then an attack coincidentally happening after one of these (now frequent) training exercises, or ... ZOMG NWO conzpiracy!!!!1!!

Lmfao, "age of terrorism," indeed, wow, yes. I find it strange how many here will defend the state and law enforcement before even considering any alternative. Anyone that actually believes in the "age of terrorism," narrative is an idiot, sorry.

It's nice how such "attacks," happen when it's politically convenient.

[Slavic]

Lmfao, "age of terrorism," indeed, wow, yes. I find it strange how many here will defend the state and law enforcement before even considering any alternative. Anyone that actually believes in the "age of terrorism," narrative is an idiot, sorry.

I don't think anyone here is defending the state and law enforcement agencies. We are just stating that in addition to typical crime, there is always a small chance that a mass public shooting or bombing can occur. Because these things can occur, law enforcement agencies typically do some sort of training for these scenarios.

It is not every day that a man with a fully automatic shoots up a public place, or a bomb goes off during a mass gathering. If law enforcement did not occasionally train for such events, they would probably be less efficient in handling these situations.

Also this alternative that you are implying seems to me that you are claming that law enforment agencies are not only behind but orchestrated every major mass shooting/bombing that occurred in the US. Are you really that delusional?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think anyone here is defending the state and law enforcement agencies. We are just stating that in addition to typical crime, there is always a small chance that a mass public shooting or bombing can occur. Because these things can occur, law enforcement agencies typically do some sort of training for these scenarios.

It is not every day that a man with a fully automatic shoots up a public place, or a bomb goes off during a mass gathering. If law enforcement did not occasionally train for such events, they would probably be less efficient in handling these situations.

Sure, that does make sense however, at the same damn time, though, larger things are afoot, ya dig. As you said, we're only seeing things on a superficial level.


Also this alternative that you are implying seems to me that you are claming that law enforment agencies are not only behind but orchestrated every major mass shooting/bombing that occurred in the US.

I wouldn't go so far as saying all that, exactly, but yes. Top down; shit rolls down hill.


Are you really that delusional?

Yes, perhaps we haven't met, I'm Voxxy, how do you do.

[khad]

/sarcasm

Jews did 9/11. I know it because insidejobinsidejob.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

/sarcasm

Jews did 9/11. I know it because insidejobinsidejob.

:rolleyes: yawn, yes, nevermind, the state, law enforcement, etc. are your friends, they aren't corrupt, they aren't wrapped in the same shit, they care about the general welfare of the citizenry, they would never hurt us, of course not, their job is to protect and serve for crying out loud! The state is "we the people," we are the state, we elected them, they are us. Nothing to see here, I'm just a loon.

/Stockholm syndrome

[Tim Cornelis]

The most embarrassing moment (at least for me) was when conspiracy theorists claimed that some police chief or something referring to the suspects of the Boston bombing as "actors" thinking actor exclusively refers to dramatised roles, as opposed to "being involved in a certain affair", e.g. "The Brigade Rosse was a major actor in the Years of Lead". Of course, me trying to explain that 'actor' is often used in this context, and not just to refer to dramatised roles, was met with scorn. How could I be so blind? Obviously, the chief or head of the investigation spilled the beans about a false flag operation on public TV multiple times by calling the suspects fake -- obviously.


:rolleyes: yawn, yes, nevermind, the state, law enforcement, etc. are your friends, they aren't corrupt, they aren't wrapped in the same shit, they care about the general welfare of the citizenry, they would never hurt us, of course not, their job is to protect and serve for crying out loud! The state is "we the people," we are the state, we elected them, they are us. Nothing to see here, I'm just a loon.

/Stockholm syndrome

Yeah, this doesn't really work on a forum of militants wanting to overthrow the entire existing order because it is deemed oppressive.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Lmfao, "age of terrorism," indeed, wow, yes. I find it strange how many here will defend the state and law enforcement


Who the flying fuck is defending state and law enforcement? Are you talking about me? Quote me where I do that motherfucker.


before even considering any alternative.

Perhaps because the alternative is based on deriving crazy fucking conspiracy theories based on a few coincidences.


Anyone that actually believes in the "age of terrorism," narrative is an idiot, sorry.

Yeah because seeing the obvious connection between American and European intervention in the Middle East and terrorism makes you stupid. Also, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers are all conspiracies centered around the CIA and NWO rite?

If you think that terrorism doesn't exist, you're completely dehistoricizing the societies from which terrorism emerges, and taking all of their agency away. The fact is that there are real historical pressures, being caused not by conspiracies in dark rooms but colonialism, capitalism and imperialism. You're no longer criticizing Capitalism, you're criticizing the specters of your own mind that you have built up to make the world sensible. The fact is, no conspiracies are needed. Terrorism is the logical consequence of decentrilized political movements in colonized societies, and this has always been the case historically. Thinking that Arab or Chechen terrorists are somehow different and are really just controlled by the CIA is silly and juvenile.



It's nice how such "attacks," happen when it's politically convenient.

Yeah obviously any terrorist attack is going to be politically convenient to someone in the ruling class. That doesn't mean that they organized it.

[DasFapital]

Are you sure you don't have a PrisonPlanet account you are mixing up with your Revleft account?

[bcbm]

i totally feel you. one time my local fire department ran an exercise where they set an old house on fire and went in doing room searches and then put out the fire. a week later, a real house caught on fire and they had to do the same thing

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8HNmZNZZ8gk/UIKvi6w_hdI/AAAAAAAABW8/shWa7VuPQx0/s1600/s_c_eye_disk.jpg

[Sasha]

Damn police chiefs always spilling the beans though, also clearly not enough rehearsed, one lousy TSA agent dead and one patsy? Bad investment, we are going to forget about that tomorrow, now at least 9/11 and oklahoma where a good bang for the NWO's buck but since then they really have been slacking. We of ZOG had a chat with the Vatican and we are so going to suspend those amateurs from the league of shadows.

[Remus Bleys]

I love how threads about conspiracy theory always devolve into baseless accusations of anti-semitism.
As if that's even relevant to the ridiculousness that is this thread.

[synthesis]

conspiracies in dark rooms

Why does it always have to be in dark rooms? Just once I'd like to see people in a movie planning the next catastrophe or hysteria with a PowerPoint presentation in a room with bright fluorescent bulbs and black leather office chairs.

Speaking of which, I think the prevalence of these narratives in movies and television is pretty solid evidence of how they reinforce the existing order. Not only do they provide a framework requiring only minimal knowledge of current events to believe that one understands how the whole world works, they also provide a built-in defense mechanism for that framework in its solipsism.

Pretty much every single one of these people - and I know the OP is no exception - will readily admit that there is literally nothing you can do to change their minds about the existence of a conspiracy. Maybe conspiracy theories are the new opiate of the people.

[khad]

Pretty much every single one of these people - and I know the OP is no exception - will readily admit that there is literally nothing you can do to change their minds about the existence of a conspiracy. Maybe conspiracy theories are the new opiate of the people.
More like the anti-statism of idiots. But we've had people here uphold Joe Stack as a revolutionary, so no doubt these kinds of messages have their appeal.


As reported Friday by NBC News (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/01/21279788-sources-alleged-lax-gunman-had-new-world-order-conspiracy-theory-tract?lite), the suspect, identified by authorities as 23-year-old Los Angeles resident Paul Anthony Ciancia, was carrying anti-government literature outlining an alleged conspiracy to create a single global government, possibly prepared by a group known as the "New World Order," when he opened fire on workers with the Transportation Safety Administration, killing one and injuring several others.

But a blog post by Mark Potok, an expert on U.S. hate groups with the Southern Poverty Law Center, added new details about what he described as a one-page “manifesto” that included references to the Federal Reserve and “fiat currency.”
Why would the NWO expose itself in some seemingly random act of political violence by naming its own conspiracy?

Oh, hiding in plain sight, gotcha. :rolleyes:

[khad]

http://undergroundbombshelter.com/images/nuclear-air-raid-drills.jpg

All these children were incinerated in nuclear hellfire the week after this photo was taken.

[#FF0000]

:rolleyes: yawn, yes, nevermind, the state, law enforcement, etc. are your friends, they aren't corrupt, they aren't wrapped in the same shit, they care about the general welfare of the citizenry, they would never hurt us, of course not, their job is to protect and serve for crying out loud! The state is "we the people," we are the state, we elected them, they are us. Nothing to see here, I'm just a loon.

saying "hey i don't think there is enough (any) real compelling evidence to suggest there is some gov't conspiracy" is not the same as saying all that. on the flipside, being anti-state doesn't mean falling for every dumb conspiracy theory.

c'mon dogg.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sometimes, I really wish the conversations we have on here took place irl so I can politely say, one at a time guys, geesh, lol, anywho...


Who the flying fuck is defending state and law enforcement? Are you talking about me? Quote me where I do that motherfucker.

:lol:

Oh man, methinks I made someone angry.

Anyways, grumpy pants, you and others are going up to bat for the state and law enforcement in this thread, are you not? Are you not defending both entities against my "crazed and delusional and unfair" accusations? Seems like it, and that's what I meant. I also think it's ridiculous that none of you are capable of discussing such topics without of course acting like a bunch of petulant liberals throwing out tired cop outs, irrelevancies and taking what I say to it's logical absurdity. It's one thing to be saying something like this...


hey i don't think there is enough (any) real compelling evidence to suggest there is some gov't conspiracy"

and then addressing the subject from that standpoint and immediately acting like a bunch of assholes and throwing all these curve balls from left field, like most of you typically do.

Also, for the record, I don't fuck mothers.


Perhaps because the alternative is based on deriving crazy fucking conspiracy theories based on a few coincidences.

Really? A few coincidences?

And now, ridiculous irrelevancies...


Yeah because seeing the obvious connection between American and European intervention in the Middle East and terrorism makes you stupid. Also, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers are all conspiracies centered around the CIA and NWO rite?

I have not said at any point and time on this forum that "terrorism," (whatever the fuck that means) doesn't exist more I have stated that some alleged "terrorist," groups are fictional front groups. Get my ramblings right if you're going to come at me so aggressively.


If you think that terrorism doesn't exist, you're completely dehistoricizing the societies from which terrorism emerges, and taking all of their agency away.

Really? Let's examine this, a nation-state such as the United States or the Roman Empire or what have you, can go about the globe using deceit, treachery, mayhem and barbarism to obtain their objectives and it's consider business as usual, ho hum, full of cum but yet when a small factional group does essentially the same thing, it's suddenly "terrorism." How exactly are we using and applying this word? This seems like some vague, abstract nonsense and no, stating any of this isn't dehistoricizing (which isn't a word) anything.


The fact is that there are real historical pressures, being caused not by conspiracies in dark rooms but colonialism, capitalism and imperialism.

Ok, but, the question needs to be asked, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?


You're no longer criticizing Capitalism, you're criticizing the specters of your own mind that you have built up to make the world sensible.

And cue, the typical "you're a moonbat," cop out. Fuck critical thinking, you're right.


The fact is, no conspiracies are needed.

Define conspiracy.


Terrorism is the logical consequence of decentrilized political movements in colonized societies, and this has always been the case historically.

:rolleyes:


Thinking that Arab or Chechen terrorists are somehow different and are really just controlled by the CIA is silly and juvenile.

What's juvenile is you're little diatribe here on "terrorism." Just because I said groups such as al-Qaeda are really CIA front groups doesn't mean, I'm saying the same thing in regards to groups such as the IRA or the Tamil Tigers, which are completely unrelated to what is being discussed here. Not to mention the fact that what this has to do with this thread is beyond me. Just because I am criticizing one group, doesn't inherently mean, I am laying the same criticism to all groups whom fall under this weird title of "terrorism." I also think this "terrorism," thing is more or less a racket; the word and terminology and use of, itself.


Yeah obviously any terrorist attack is going to be politically convenient to someone in the ruling class. That doesn't mean that they organized it.

Da fok? Your point?


The most embarrassing moment (at least for me) was when conspiracy theorists claimed that some police chief or something referring to the suspects of the Boston bombing as "actors" thinking actor exclusively refers to dramatised roles, as opposed to "being involved in a certain affair", e.g. "The Brigade Rosse was a major actor in the Years of Lead".

How the fuck does either definition negate anything be said?


Yeah, this doesn't really work on a forum of militants wanting to overthrow the entire existing order because it is deemed oppressive.

If that's how you really view RL, ok, sure.


i totally feel you. one time my local fire department ran an exercise where they set an old house on fire and went in doing room searches and then put out the fire. a week later, a real house caught on fire and they had to do the same thing

:rolleyes:

Listing satirical scenarios which are similar but not the same within the context of this conversation doesn't negate anything.


Pretty much every single one of these people - and I know the OP is no exception - will readily admit that there is literally nothing you can do to change their minds about the existence of a conspiracy. Maybe conspiracy theories are the new opiate of the people.

I want define this word "conspiracy," before we continue. Let's get this all sparkly clear. Considering, I could argue that class dictatorship and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and other such theories are really, conspiracy theories wrapped in intellectual robes, for example.

Marx was on some NWO shit guys, admit it.

What really constitutes are being a conspiracy? At what point does something go from A to B and gets the scarlet letter of conspiratorial moonbatery?

[Nakidana]

Its obvious that any active shooter exercise is going to be modeled after the most probable scenario possible.

Pfff, get outta here! Next you'll be telling us the military also carries out these "realistic exercises"!

(so realistic in fact that it at one point almost started a nuclear war (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/02/nato-war-game-nuclear-disaster))


/sarcasm

Jews did 9/11. I know it because insidejobinsidejob.

Whoa whoa whoa, now just HOLD ON a minute...you stopped your sarcasm before your statement...OMG guiz khad is a NWO antisemite stormfront shill! GUIZ, hey GUIZ!!!


...guys? :unsure:

[bcbm]

Anyways, grumpy pants, you and others are going up to bat for the state and law enforcement in this thread, are you not? Are you not defending both entities against my "crazed and delusional and unfair" accusations?

you get mad that people 'act like a bunch of petulant liberals' towards you while you are accusing everyone who disagrees of 'going to bat for the state and law enforcement.'


Really? A few coincidences?

compared (http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/10/muskegon_county_law_enforcemen_4.html) to (http://www.kmvt.com/news/local/Officers-Take-Part-in-Active-Shooter-Training-229487811.html) how (http://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/more-than-a-dozen-police-departments-participate-in-active-shooter/article_f05563d6-4109-11e3-8399-001a4bcf6878.html) many (http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Active-Shooter-Training-Drill-Went-Well-According-To-Jefferson-County-Emergency-Management-230275781.html) exercises (http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/home_top/2728586/LaGrange-police-train-to-handle-active-shooter-situations) happen (http://www.centredaily.com/2013/10/23/3852090/police-officers-from-across-region.html) where there is no attack within a few days or weeks? yeah. i also think this sort of thing suffers from confirmation bias; if you want to find coincidences it isn't very hard to do.


And cue, the typical "you're a moonbat," cop out. Fuck critical thinking, you're right.

and cue, the typical 'you're all sheeple,' cop out. everyone who disagrees with you has no critical thinking because they can't see the truth.


:rolleyes:

Listing satirical scenarios which are similar but not the same within the context of this conversation doesn't negate anything.

there are no coincidences.

[Yukari]

Really? A few coincidences?

And now, ridiculous irrelevancies...

Now, was it even a few. This was a NWO/gobment plot because of a drill from three weeks ago?


Da fok? Your point?

The point was that what the fuck was your point. Events such as this are always 'politically convenient' if those of power choose to capitalize on it, but it doesn't mean that they'll organize such to drive their own ends

[synthesis]

You wanna talk about coincidences? Let's talk about coincidences. Is it a coincidence that all these LAX/Aurora/Sandy Hook conspiracy narratives come from the right wing whenever some suicidal nutjob shoots up a bunch of civilians and that they just happen to have the effect of discouraging people from reaching the logical conclusion from these incidents, which is the passing of laws restricting gun ownership?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

you get mad that people 'act like a bunch of petulant liberals' towards you while you are accusing everyone who disagrees of 'going to bat for the state and law enforcement.'

Fair point, to a degree but in all do fairness, I was put on the defensive with all that crap.


and cue, the typical 'you're all sheeple,' cop out. everyone who disagrees with you has no critical thinking because they can't see the truth.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you disagree with me and think I'm a loon, then ok, argue that point in a clear, rational and intellectually coherent way and spare me the usual "ermagherd, das a conspiracy theory, what the fuck, mehh," shit, you know? Such crap does not a counter-argument make. Address things outright, don't inject irrelevant crap, don't conflate and over-generalize my arguments with other arguments which I haven't made, etc. Not that I'm saying you have, I'm just saying.

It's not the fact that you're/other people are disagreeing with me, it's how some are choosing to articulate their various disagreements and grievances is what I'm taking issue with.


there are no coincidences.

But I'm saying it seems more than just coincidental especially in light of the fact that these shooting just seemed to have popped out of thin air, in rapid succession, following certain patterns which seem indicative of something more than what is being portrayed on face value.

I will concede though that I have been just as silly here and there in this thread as others have.


Now, was it even a few. This was a NWO/gobment plot because of a drill from three weeks ago?

No.


The point was that what the fuck was your point. Events such as this are always 'politically convenient' if those of power choose to capitalize on it, but it doesn't mean that they'll organize such to drive their own ends

Why not?


You wanna talk about coincidences? Let's talk about coincidences. Is it a coincidence that all these LAX/Aurora/Sandy Hook conspiracy narratives come from the right wing whenever some suicidal nutjob shoots up a bunch of civilians and that they just happen to have the effect of discouraging people from reaching the logical conclusion from these incidents, which is the passing of laws restricting gun ownership?

Until you address what I said, I will not address the above.

[synthesis]

Vox Populi - why don't you think the Greek fascist killings were a government conspiracy? Is it because they don't fit in with the way you want to see the world, or is it because you didn't read it on Prison Planet first? (Funny how selective the "critical thinking" of conspiracy theorists can be.)

I'll be shocked - shocked - if your response to this doesn't contain a single eye-rolling emoticon.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Vox Populi - why don't you think the Greek fascist killings were a government conspiracy? Is it because they don't fit in with the way you want to see the world, or is it because you didn't read it on Prison Planet first? (Funny how selective the "critical thinking" of conspiracy theorists can be.)

I never said it wasn't, in fact, in regards to the thread that I think you're referencing (and correct me if I am wrong) all I said was "I'm lovin it," and "shit happens." I was actually going to respond last night saying that I believe it very well could be but I was lazy and high and didn't feel like getting into all of that at that given time. To be perfectly honest.

Moving forward, the Prison Planet jabs are pretty basic and boring; atleast Khad's picture of children hiding under their desks and the caption made me giggle.


I'll be shocked - shocked - if your response to this doesn't contain a single eye-rolling emoticon.

What's wrong with me rolling my eyes? lol.

[Super international]

Okay. Who let Alex Jones in? :sleep:

[adipocere]

As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy, I find nothing unusual about budget-bloated LAPD doing flashy maneuvers and training scenarios in a major airport three weeks before someone shoots it up.
It just doesn't have the same conspiratorial punch as say...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RS7D8A4l0uc/UXZgubOZQYI/AAAAAAAATjI/s7R_Hiz7wtw/s320/BostonGlobe2.jpg

[bcbm]

Fair point, to a degree but in all do fairness, I was put on the defensive with all that crap.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you disagree with me and think I'm a loon, then ok, argue that point in a clear, rational and intellectually coherent way and spare me the usual "ermagherd, das a conspiracy theory, what the fuck, mehh," shit, you know? Such crap does not a counter-argument make. Address things outright, don't inject irrelevant crap, don't conflate and over-generalize my arguments with other arguments which I haven't made, etc. Not that I'm saying you have, I'm just saying.

It's not the fact that you're/other people are disagreeing with me, it's how some are choosing to articulate their various disagreements and grievances is what I'm taking issue with.

fair enough.


But I'm saying it seems more than just coincidental especially in light of the fact that these shooting just seemed to have popped out of thin air, in rapid succession, following certain patterns which seem indicative of something more than what is being portrayed on face value.

i think it is reasonable to assume that spree killings will follow some kind of pattern, being that spree killing is a fairly unique thing. as for 'popping out of thin air,' unlike a network based group an individual making an attack is less likely to give much away in the form of 'chatter.' those that do are typically stopped/helped before they can carry out their actions, though not always. i agree they do seem to be happening more frequently but i think this is indicative of things going on within society (economic hardship, increased alienation and atomization, and the like) rather than shooters being manipulated by individuals or institutions. i mean besides the larger incidents you mentioned earlier in the thread there have been spree killing events occurring about once a month or so as best i can recall.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

:lol:

Oh man, methinks I made someone angry.


Sometimes acting angry helps to emphasize a point. Your "skepticism" about the existence of al Qaeda is absurd, and calling anyone who talks of terrorism in the modern age "stupid" is not a very sophisticated way of approaching the problem.



Anyways, grumpy pants, you and others are going up to bat for the state and law enforcement in this thread, are you not? Are you not defending both entities against my "crazed and delusional and unfair" accusations? Seems like it, and that's what I meant. I also think it's ridiculous that none of you are capable of discussing such topics without of course acting like a bunch of petulant liberals throwing out tired cop outs, irrelevancies and taking what I say to it's logical absurdity. It's one thing to be saying something like this...
One could say I am going "to bat" for the state and law enforcement in the same way that saying Mussolini wasn't the one who decided on the holocaust as German state policy is going "to bat" for Italian fascism. It's not that I agree with defending those institutions, it's that I disagree with your reasons for attacking those institutions.


I have not said at any point and time on this forum that "terrorism," (whatever the fuck that means) doesn't exist more I have stated that some alleged "terrorist," groups are fictional front groups. Get my ramblings right if you're going to come at me so aggressively. Saying that al Qaeda is just a front group for the CIA is not just groundless, its silly. Why is the existence of al Qaeda any less realistic than the existence of any other groups? Especially when you consider that AQI helped to drive the US out of Iraq with a bloody nose and no geopolitical advantage for the US. It would be the first time in history that a front group consistently undermines the interests of its sponsor for over two decades.


Really? Let's examine this, a nation-state such as the United States or the Roman Empire or what have you, can go about the globe using deceit, treachery, mayhem and barbarism to obtain their objectives and it's consider business as usual, ho hum, full of cum but yet when a small factional group does essentially the same thing, it's suddenly "terrorism." How exactly are we using and applying this word? This seems like some vague, abstract nonsense and no, stating any of this isn't dehistoricizing (which isn't a word) anything.
Terrorism is a strategy. Talking about terrorism and admitting its existence doesn't make us apologists for the states which terrorists attack.


Ok, but, the question needs to be asked, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?Uhm the fact that there's a much more logical explanation that is coherent with our critique of Imperialism and Colonialism, and doesn't require us to posit some kind of secret, hidden institution conjuring up false flag attacks. Occam's razor bro.


And cue, the typical "you're a moonbat," cop out. Fuck critical thinking, you're right.I don't think the person asserting a massive global conspiracy theory based on a couple of coincidences is in any place to accuse someone else of not using "critical thinking".


What's juvenile is you're little diatribe here on "terrorism." Just because I said groups such as al-Qaeda are really CIA front groups doesn't mean, I'm saying the same thing in regards to groups such as the IRA or the Tamil Tigers, which are completely unrelated to what is being discussed here. Not to mention the fact that what this has to do with this thread is beyond me. Just because I am criticizing one group, doesn't inherently mean, I am laying the same criticism to all groups whom fall under this weird title of "terrorism." I also think this "terrorism," thing is more or less a racket; the word and terminology and use of, itself.It's not "juvenile", certainly not next to asserting some vague conspiracy theory based on coincidence.

What reason do you have to believe that al-Qaeda is a "CIA front group"? There's no real evidence of this, except for the very bad evidence that the CIA allied with Wahabi extremists that ultimately helped to found al Qaeda during the war in Afghanistan some time before it existed in its current form. Based on the history of proxies and the way they work, it's really bad evidence to use that to prove some kind of modern day association. That al Qaeda was founded by people who made an opportunistic alliance with the US when the USSR was still around, then broke from the US when the USSR collapsed and the UN sent soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis, is a much more logical and reasonable explanation, especially when you consider the fact that the CIA's past involvement with Wahabi extremism is pretty much open knowledge.


Da fok? Your point?You implied the fact that it helped various powerful political institutions attain their objective as evidence that this was "planned" by these same institutions.


EDIT - a part of the reason why people get irritated at this kind of thing, especially on the Left, is that they are a waste of time and energy, as well as focusing the debate on false specters. A lot on the Left have this desire, in their hatred of the system and their psychological need to have everything "explained" and make sense, buy in to these conspiracies about the events that happen by "seeming coincidence" and ultimately serve to help the powers at be, but the vast majority of these conspiracy theories turn out to be hairbrained nonsense. When people get caught up in whether or not some coincidences are really the result of a hidden oligarchy are planning all the bad things that happen, they just alienate people who are a little less credulous while taking the focus away from the mechanisms at fault. The problem with al Qaeda comes from a local response to a history of conquest, exploitation, repression, etc from British, French or Russian colonialism to American ("Coalition") intervention, to the corrupt elites of these countries. When al Qaeda becomes some mythical creation of the CIA designed to unite "the people" we lose focus of the institutions, systems and material realities that are actually oppressing many young Sunni men in the 3rd world and driving them to adopt al Qaeda's ideology.

Thus, the possibility for radical change is diluted by this change in people's attention from the way institutions actually work to some unlikely story based on conjecture.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sometimes acting angry helps to emphasize a point.

Not really, it just makes you look unnecessarily grumpy. Why so glum chum?


Your "skepticism" about the existence of al Qaeda is absurd, and calling anyone who talks of terrorism in the modern age "stupid" is not a very sophisticated way of approaching the problem.

I could elaborate on why I would say anyone who actually believes in "terrorism," or the "war on terror," or the "age of terror" is stupid if that would make you feel better? I think I expanded upon this line of criticism in my last post but not in full detail. Sure, it's an insult but not a baseless one. Moving forward, I almost don't want to get into the "is al-Qaeda real," debate considering it has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever but to defend myself, I will respond to your post. Mind you and I want to be explicitly clear, I will not have this thread de-railed and am only responding to defend my person, briefly. Needless to say, the claim that al-Qaeda is a front group is not absurd considering the name itself does not really mean "the base," but rather, in most Arabic speaking nations means shitter or toilet. So, yeah, if you want to believe some pissed off Muslims are running around reeking havoc in Western nations under the banner of "The Shitter," by all means, do so, but just take this into account when saying my positions on the subject are "absurd."


One could say I am going "to bat" for the state and law enforcement in the same way that saying Mussolini wasn't the one who decided on the holocaust as German state policy is going "to bat" for Italian fascism.

This has what to do with what I said?


It's not that I agree with defending those institutions, it's that I disagree with your reasons for attacking those institutions.

When I said you were defending said entities I explicitly meant both in this case and similar cases, not in all things.


Saying that al Qaeda is just a front group for the CIA is not just groundless, its silly.

Oh rly? You don't say.


Why is the existence of al Qaeda any less realistic than the existence of any other groups?

Because the United States government invested billions of dollars into this "group," and is still using them in their crypto-imperialist efforts today, most recently in Syria, for one.


Especially when you consider that AQI helped to drive the US out of Iraq with a bloody nose and no geopolitical advantage for the US. It would be the first time in history that a front group consistently undermines the interests of its sponsor for over two decades.

Lmfao, uh, pretty sure there is still a large American presence there and numerous private contractors and so on. To lay the claim that The Shitter kicked the Americans out and gave them a bloody nose, within the context of this conversation is absolutely hilarious.


Terrorism is a strategy. Talking about terrorism and admitting its existence doesn't make us apologists for the states which terrorists attack.

Considering this "al-Qaeda," and "War on Terror," shit is the fictional narrative on which their imperial efforts are buttressed by and legitimized by, yes, it kind of does, actually. That's kind of like saying, no, I am not a Nazi sympathizer, I disagree whole-heartedly with the Third Reich, it's policies and leaders but I think there is a global Jewish-Communist plot to take over Germany, Europe and so on and which lead to the defeat of WWI.

"Terrorism," is bullshit, really, it's some vague, abstract, nonsensical concept. What exactly is terrorism? How does it differ from the actions taken by imperialist states such as the US or the UK, exactly? Daily drone strikes are just imperialist "war-mongering," but a car bombing in Omgah is "terrorism"? Who gets to define what "terrorism," is? Can we not just call all of this shit violence, murder or mayhem and call it a day? Da fak.

I also will ask the same question I did in the 9/11 thread, how is a clandestine, shadowy group that meets in the underworld, that is plotting unspeakable acts against NATO countries using "weapons of mass destruction," that is insane, backwards, suicidal and so on, not a conspiracy theory? Is it not a theory which is premised on a conspiratorial marginal group all in cahoots with each other? Is this whole debate not just a matter of perspective?


Uhm the fact that there's a much more logical explanation that is coherent with our critique of Imperialism and Colonialism, and doesn't require us to posit some kind of secret, hidden institution conjuring up false flag attacks.

I fail to see how critiques of imperialism and colonialism would negate anything that I've said and can't in fact coincides with said assertions.


Occam's razor bro.

Back atcha babes.<3 ;)


I don't think the person asserting a massive global conspiracy theory based on a couple of coincidences is in any place to accuse someone else of not using "critical thinking".

That's a pretty ridiculous summation of my arguments there.


It's not "juvenile", certainly not next to asserting some vague conspiracy theory based on coincidence.

Nope, you're previous statements were pretty juvenile.


What reason do you have to believe that al-Qaeda is a "CIA front group"?

A better question would be, what reasons do I have no to believe The Shitter isn't a CIA front group? I mean, the most glaring example is 7 years ago "al-Qaeda," was America's worst enemy, now they're being backed, funded and armed by the US/NATO in places such as Libya and Syria. The Shitter is whatever America wants it to be at the time; it's pretty convenient in that regard.


There's no real evidence of this, except for the very bad evidence that the CIA allied with Wahabi extremists that ultimately helped to found al Qaeda during the war in Afghanistan some time before it existed in its current form.

What about Bosnia? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about bin Laden?

There is more concrete evidences than what I've been alluding to however I've grown strapped for time and will address this further tomorrow in full detail if you like. I will finish this tomorrow and leave it at this for now.

[bcbm]

Needless to say, the claim that al-Qaeda is a front group is not absurd considering the name itself does not really mean "the base," but rather, in most Arabic speaking nations means shitter or toilet. So, yeah, if you want to believe some pissed off Muslims are running around reeking havoc in Western nations under the banner of "The Shitter," by all means, do so, but just take this into account when saying my positions on the subject are "absurd."

this isn't true. the word for toilet is different (qa'ada), though shares a root with qaeda.



A better question would be, what reasons do I have no to believe The Shitter isn't a CIA front group? I mean, the most glaring example is 7 years ago "al-Qaeda," was America's worst enemy, now they're being backed, funded and armed by the US/NATO in places such as Libya and Syria. The Shitter is whatever America wants it to be at the time; it's pretty convenient in that regard.

i think 'backed, funded and armed' is more than a bit of an overstatement.


What about Bosnia? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about bin Laden?

i'd have stopped feeding a dog that keeps biting back awhile ago.

oh but all the terrorist attacks are done at the behest of the (often incredibly inept) cia so...


There is more concrete evidences than what I've been alluding to

oh do tell.

[synthesis]

Vox Populi: I ask you again, what evidence would we have to present to prove that this incident was exactly what it appears to be and obviously is? And if, like in the 9/11 thread, your answer is essentially "You can't convince me with any amount of evidence," what is the point of discussing this at all? Eventually people get tired of being asked to prove that God doesn't exist, and this is far more mundane yet also more of a ludicrous, unfounded and just plain ignorant proposition.

[synthesis]

oh but all the terrorist attacks are done at the behest of the (often incredibly inept) cia so...

I can't believe this needs explaining. Obviously every public mistake the CIA ever made was carefully calculated to obscure their true nature as the omnipotent servants of the Manchurian reptilian Judaic Interplanetary Order of Xenu Dogshit the Intransigent. God, read a book once in awhile and maybe you wouldn't be so vulnerable to their brazen sheepopulism.

[Hexen]

:rolleyes: yawn, yes, nevermind, the state, law enforcement, etc. are your friends, they aren't corrupt, they aren't wrapped in the same shit, they care about the general welfare of the citizenry, they would never hurt us, of course not, their job is to protect and serve for crying out loud! The state is "we the people," we are the state, we elected them, they are us. Nothing to see here, I'm just a loon.

/Stockholm syndrome

Translation: "I want the Government (public schooling, water, social security, etc) off my back (which goes back to the "Self Made Man" ideology prevalent in US culture and the "Government support" interferes with their 'success') and get rid all of that regulations as well so I (the libertarian capitalist) can do whatever the fuck I want (exploiting workers like slaves, owning slaves, ability to kill my own workers, polluting the environment like it's the Gilded Age)"

I don't know if Vox Populi is being mislead by right wing libertarians (which is who the conspiracy nuts really are) or he's an actual reactionary that needs to be restricted.

[Remus Bleys]

Translation: "I want the Government (public schooling, water, social security, etc) off my back (which goes back to the "Self Made Man" ideology prevalent in US culture and the "Government support" interferes with their 'success') and get rid all of that regulations as well so I (the libertarian capitalist) can do whatever the fuck I want (exploiting workers like slaves, owning slaves, ability to kill my own workers, polluting the environment like it's the Gilded Age)"

I don't know if Vox Populi is being mislead by right wing libertarians (which is who the conspiracy nuts really are) or he's an actual reactionary that needs to be restricted.You are apologizing for the Bourgeoisie state.
EVEN FUCKING LENIN SAID TO SMASH THE BOURGEOISIE STATE!
:rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

This particular shooting incident doesn't even seem important enough to construct a conspiracy theory around.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I could elaborate on why I would say anyone who actually believes in "terrorism," or the "war on terror," or the "age of terror" is stupid if that would make you feel better? I think I expanded upon this line of criticism in my last post but not in full detail. Sure, it's an insult but not a baseless one. Moving forward, I almost don't want to get into the "is al-Qaeda real," debate considering it has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever but to defend myself, I will respond to your post. Mind you and I want to be explicitly clear, I will not have this thread de-railed and am only responding to defend my person, briefly. Needless to say, the claim that al-Qaeda is a front group is not absurd considering the name itself does not really mean "the base," but rather, in most Arabic speaking nations means shitter or toilet. So, yeah, if you want to believe some pissed off Muslims are running around reeking havoc in Western nations under the banner of "The Shitter," by all means, do so, but just take this into account when saying my positions on the subject are "absurd."


You'd think if this was some huuuuge CIA conspiracy, they would have thought of a better name if it was actually so offensive in Arabic.


This has what to do with what I said?

Uhm it directly addresses what you said.


When I said you were defending said entities I explicitly meant both in this case and similar cases, not in all things.


I guess you have different definitions of "defend" and "explicit"


Because the United States government invested billions of dollars into this "group," and is still using them in their crypto-imperialist efforts today, most recently in Syria, for one.

except for the fact that there are numerous competing groups in Syria, of which al Qaeda is only one of many ...


Lmfao, uh, pretty sure there is still a large American presence there and numerous private contractors and so on. To lay the claim that The Shitter kicked the Americans out and gave them a bloody nose, within the context of this conversation is absolutely hilarious.

Nobody who knows what they're talking about seriously argues that the US has a substantial influence over the Iraqi state and Iraqi policy, especially not compared to Iran. AQI left hundreds of American soldiers dead and embarrassed a government which sold the war on a minimal body count. The US left ingloriously, largely having failed to achieve is objectives.


Considering this "al-Qaeda," and "War on Terror," shit is the fictional narrative on which their imperial efforts are buttressed by and legitimized by, yes, it kind of does, actually. That's kind of like saying, no, I am not a Nazi sympathizer, I disagree whole-heartedly with the Third Reich, it's policies and leaders but I think there is a global Jewish-Communist plot to take over Germany, Europe and so on and which lead to the defeat of WWI.


I don't really know where to begin with the problems of this analogy.



"Terrorism," is bullshit, really, it's some vague, abstract, nonsensical concept. What exactly is terrorism? How does it differ from the actions taken by imperialist states such as the US or the UK, exactly? Daily drone strikes are just imperialist "war-mongering," but a car bombing in Omgah is "terrorism"? Who gets to define what "terrorism," is? Can we not just call all of this shit violence, murder or mayhem and call it a day? Da fak.

I already answered your question about what "terrorism" is - terrorism is a particular kind of strategy. There is no moral judgement in using "terrorism" as a particular category of strategies.


I also will ask the same question I did in the 9/11 thread, how is a clandestine, shadowy group that meets in the underworld, that is plotting unspeakable acts against NATO countries using "weapons of mass destruction," that is insane, backwards, suicidal and so on, not a conspiracy theory? Is it not a theory which is premised on a conspiratorial marginal group all in cahoots with each other? Is this whole debate not just a matter of perspective?

Who said conspiracies don't exist? People are just saying that you have no evidence for your "conspiracy" and your evidence is limited to a couple of coincidences and the fact that you could construe their name as a dirty play on word.


I fail to see how critiques of imperialism and colonialism would negate anything that I've said and can't in fact coincides with said assertions.

Simple - you're ignoring a very simple facet of colonialism and imperialism, which is that it is very unstable and its instability drives conflict. Your whole argument is based on the premise that the seeming instability and conflict is all an illusion to pacify the masses, not the unfortunate logical consequence of a globalized and militarized international marketplace.


What about Bosnia? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about bin Laden?

Bosnia and Afghanistan were 30 years ago. 20 years before WWII started, the US and Japan were allies against Germany. I guess that's proof that Pearl Harbor was an American conspiracy to get insurance money for its battleships. The USSR and Nazi Germany had a non-aggression pact and Stalin actually aided the Nazis. I guess that's proof that Operation Barbarossa was a conspiracy by Stalin and Hitler to drive down land prices in the Black Sea area.

[Sasha]

to be fair there are actually some reasonable arguments to be made that the US knew "some" japanese attack was eminent and they led it happen because it would be an perfect excuse to get the US public to get behind involvement in WW2 also in europe.
but thats only more argument for what you (and others) have been saying about conspiracy theories, it could be very well be that someone, somewhere in the bush administration or elsewhere knew something was going to happen around 9/11. at least the suspicious trade in put options in airline and insurance company stock prior to 9/11 indicates someone, somewhere knew something might happen involving airplanes. that doesnt mean though that the US government was behind it all, planned it out from A to Z, knew exactly how it was going to happen, maybe some ppl just heard something, underestimated the scope of the attack and decided it might used for financial or political gain (or both). there are very real conspiracies out there, but you know what makes it impossible to investigate them seriously? the people who want to find an totally improbable, impossible, grand evil scheme in each and everything... the truth is out there? yeah probably it is but its hidden under an epic mountain of BS. conspiracies are often way more banal than people give them.

[Hexen]

You are apologizing for the Bourgeoisie state.
EVEN FUCKING LENIN SAID TO SMASH THE BOURGEOISIE STATE!
:rolleyes:

I don't know if your joking or not but if not then I never said I was, I was just explaining the driven mentality behind the conspiracy nuts which they have right wing libertarian roots which they hate the Government of any kind because it interferes with them "rising to the top" and the "self made man" which is once again prevalent in USian psychology.


The people who want to find an totally improbable, impossible, grand evil scheme in each and everything... the truth is out there? yeah probably it is but its hidden under an epic mountain of BS. conspiracies are often way more banal than people give them.

It is because conspiracy theories are simply exaggerated right winger versions of the "Capitalism is Good but there is a few bad apples we need to root out to 'fix' the system" argument since it's entirely emotionally driven black & white view of the world rather than logically looking at the system itself like we Marxists do.

[Hexen]

Ironically, the suspect member who did the shooting, turns out to be a conspiracy nut after all:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/02/21286208-lax-suspect-had-patriot-movement-propaganda-on-him-expert-says?lite


Clues on a possible motive for an armed assault at Los Angeles International Airport emerged Saturday, with reports that the suspect was carrying a “manifesto” associated with the antigovernment “patriot” movement and a note saying he intended to murder at least one Transportation Security Administration officer.

The Associated Press, quoting a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation, reported that suspect Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, said in the note found in the duffel bag he carried into the airport on Friday that he wasn’t targeting a specific TSA employee.

“Black, white, yellow, brown, I don’t discriminate,” the note read, according to a paraphrase by the law enforcement official, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.
Ciancia was charged Saturday with murder of a federal officer and commission of violence at an international airport. A federal criminal complaint said that Ciancia also shot at least two other uniformed TSA employees and a civilian passenger.

It was not immediately clear why Ciancia wanted to lash out at the agency, but a leading organization that tracks U.S. hate groups and extremist organizations reported Saturday that the suspect may have been influenced by propaganda of the antigovernment “patriot” movement and fringe conspiracy theories.

As reported Friday by NBC News, the suspect was carrying anti-government literature outlining an alleged conspiracy to create a single global government, possibly prepared by a group known as the "New World Order," when he opened fire on workers with the Transportation Safety Administration, killing one and injuring several others.Told ya they are dangerous. Vox Populi you need to reconsider your line of thinking here....

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

this isn't true. the word for toilet is different (qa'ada), though shares a root with qaeda.

Actually that isn't entirely true. Depending upon the context it could mean things such as "base," or "ground," or "norm," and so on. The phrase "ana raicha al Qaeda," means "I'm going to the toilet." Which is to say, my original assertion that "al-Qaeda," means "the toilet," isn't necessarily wrong or off base.


i think 'backed, funded and armed' is more than a bit of an overstatement.

How?


oh but all the terrorist attacks are done at the behest of the (often incredibly inept) cia so...

I've never understood why people get into this whole selective incompetence of the American government, the CIA and so on.


oh do tell.

I am, geesh, lol.


Vox Populi: I ask you again, what evidence would we have to present to prove that this incident was exactly what it appears to be and obviously is?

You could start by actually adressing what I say and engage in an honest debate with me like Sinister is instead of constantly mischaracterizing


And if, like in the 9/11 thread, your answer is essentially "You can't convince me with any amount of evidence,"

I never said that, not once, and if I have I would like for you to quote me and link me to the page in which I did. That's just what you go out of it because "no amount of evidence," will convince you of the alternative. Which is obvious by each of your posts and posts by other members. I can lay the same exact charges upon you. The difference is, I can admit when I'm being wrong, or stupid and so on. That's what we in the biz call being intellectually honest.


what is the point of discussing this at all?

Who knows, this was a thread about the LAX shooting which of course has been re-railed to an over-overarching shit slinging fest against "conspiracism." RL has proved itself incapable of discussing alternative theories aside from juvenile insults, logical fallacies and irrelevancies. Pretty predictable by now to be honest.


Eventually people get tired of being asked to prove that God doesn't exist, and this is far more mundane yet also more of a ludicrous, unfounded and just plain ignorant proposition.

Considering the fact that you have been evading and dodging my questions in this thread, I don't really see the need to respond further. Stop riding the intellectual coattails of others.


Translation: "I want the Government (public schooling, water, social security, etc) off my back (which goes back to the "Self Made Man" ideology prevalent in US culture and the "Government support" interferes with their 'success') and get rid all of that regulations as well so I (the libertarian capitalist) can do whatever the fuck I want (exploiting workers like slaves, owning slaves, ability to kill my own workers, polluting the environment like it's the Gilded Age)"

How the fuck is that even remotely an accurate portryal of either my positions or my person? It's not, it's just some idiotic nonsense. Blabbidy bloo blah, lol, my apologies for being anti-state and anti-capital. I'm sure this does offend your liberal sensibilities, yes. The whole bit about the "self-made," man shit and other such bullfuckery is shit you've injected into this conversation, good job.

Out of curiosity, based upon the above and how you're choosing to view the government, can I ask you something? Are you a voting Democrat? :lol:


I don't know if Vox Populi is being mislead by right wing libertarians (which is who the conspiracy nuts really are) or he's an actual reactionary that needs to be restricted.

I am a she and not a he, furthermore, I am anything but reactionary so you're really barking up the wrong tree as far as that concerned. This is hilarious ironic considering this is the most baseless and ridiculous charge that's been leveled against me during these convos. You don't know Voxxy so don't pretend too, kthnx.<3


You are apologizing for the Bourgeoisie state.


Basically.


You'd think if this was some huuuuge CIA conspiracy, they would have thought of a better name if it was actually so offensive in Arabic.

See the above but not really, most people in the West still think jihad means "holy war." What the fuck does it matter?


Uhm it directly addresses what you said.

No, the two aren't comparable, so yeah, what're you talking about?


I guess you have different definitions of "defend" and "explicit"

Wot?


except for the fact that there are numerous competing groups in Syria, of which al Qaeda is only one of many ...

"Al-Qaeda," used NATO ally Turkey as a springboard to enter Syria, come on. The Free Syrian Army's influence is questionable. That's ultimately irrelevant considering "al-Qaeda," is the US's guy on the inside.


Nobody who knows what they're talking about seriously argues that the US has a substantial influence over the Iraqi state and Iraqi policy, especially not compared to Iran. AQI left hundreds of American soldiers dead and embarrassed a government which sold the war on a minimal body count. The US left ingloriously, largely having failed to achieve is objectives.

So, argumentum ad populum? Your assertions are validated and true because obviously everyone that knows something says so? I'm fairly confident that American oil firms still remain in Iraq. I'm pretty sure the Iraq war was a corporate victory. Dick Cheney cleared 39 billion for fuck's sake. Just because the American military proper left Iraq doesn't mean their still aren't numerous private contractors in the country. To honestly say that America doesn't have their fingers in the Iraqi pie still is pretty naive, imho.


I don't really know where to begin with the problems of this analogy.

No, go on, please elaborate. Oh, wait, am I not allowed to draw Nazi comparisons to those whom buy into the "war on terror," shit? That's only reserved for conspiracists? Lolol.


I already answered your question about what "terrorism" is - terrorism is a particular kind of strategy. There is no moral judgement in using "terrorism" as a particular category of strategies.


I fail to see how "terrorism," differs from unconventional/guerrilla warfare, covert/black operations, psych ops and so on. Please do elaborate, I'm frightfully curious as you seem so very sure; considering there is no real definition of constitutes as "terrorism," either in law or in fact. It's all subjective bullshit and straw grabbing.


Who said conspiracies don't exist? People are just saying that you have no evidence for your "conspiracy" and your evidence is limited to a couple of coincidences and the fact that you could construe their name as a dirty play on word.

Really? How do you know al-Qaeda exists? You're asserting that they do in the positive, so obviously there must be some objective proof that they do in fact exist. We know that the Taliban exists, we know that the IRA exists, but how do we know al-Qaeda exists? What evidence do you have to support it's existence that wouldn't be about as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Where did the alleged hijackers that "caused 9/11," receive their training? Where did the planes which were hijacked originate?

Does "al-Qaeda," just exist because you and NATO says it does? Because of those shitty bin Laden tapes? What proof is there that I seem to be missing?

I also think it's funny that at first, I was being criticized for believing in a "conspiracy," in general with "shadowy characters," but now this has shifted to I believe in the wrong conspiracy theory. :lol:


Simple - you're ignoring a very simple facet of colonialism and imperialism,

No, I'm not actually.


which is that it is very unstable and its instability drives conflict.

So?


Your whole argument is based on the premise that the seeming instability and conflict is all an illusion to pacify the masses, not the unfortunate logical consequence of a globalized and militarized international marketplace.

Wot?


Bosnia and Afghanistan were 30 years ago. 20 years before WWII started, the US and Japan were allies against Germany. I guess that's proof that Pearl Harbor was an American conspiracy to get insurance money for its battleships. The USSR and Nazi Germany had a non-aggression pact and Stalin actually aided the Nazis. I guess that's proof that Operation Barbarossa was a conspiracy by Stalin and Hitler to drive down land prices in the Black Sea area.

:rolleyes:

[Hexen]

How the fuck is that even remotely an accurate portryal of either my positions or my person? It's not, it's just some idiotic nonsense. Blabbidy bloo blah, lol, my apologies for being anti-state and anti-capital. I'm sure this does offend your liberal sensibilities, yes. The whole bit about the "self-made," man shit and other such bullfuckery is shit you've injected into this conversation, good job.

Out of curiosity, based upon the above and how you're choosing to view the government, can I ask you something? Are you a voting Democrat? :lol:


I think it's possible you don't even know what you subscribed to which is simple, you hate the government and you don't want to pay taxes and come up with excuses (conspiracy theories) why you don't wish to because there is something 'sinister' within the Government which alludes to Christian apocalyptic narratives (like the Revelations and such) which conspiracy theories have their roots from (i.e. the "Government/Banks" are controlled by Satan/the Jews/Reptilians/etc whatever interchangeable strawman villain they maybe) .

Also "Government" is not the problem here, Capitalism is.

Also as for voting, well it's not like I have much of a choice since if I vote third party I would be "throwing my vote away" and there is no way I'm touching Republican so that leaves me with one choice which you know what...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think it's possible you don't even know what you subscribed to which is simple

Oh, of course not, I'm just a nitwit buffoon, you're right.


you hate the government

I don't hate the government, I am opposed to the state for numerous reasons aside from base emotive responses to various personal experiences.


and you don't want to pay taxes

What the fuck does this have to do with anything that I've said? How is this not anything but an assumption on your part? How do you even know this about my person?


and come up with excuses (conspiracy theories) why you don't wish to.

:rolleyes:


Also "Government" is not the problem here, Capitalism is.

And, as an Anarchist, I happen to disagree with you insomuch as the state is also an oppressive institution which should be abolished along with capital.


Also as for voting, well it's not like I have much of a choice since if I vote third party I would be "throwing my vote away" and there is no way I'm touching Republican so that leaves me with one choice which you know what...

So, the answer is yes, you vote Democrat. Wow, I don't even think I have to say anything after that, aside from, how the hell do you have any leg to stand on in terms of criticizing me or my positions?

[synthesis]

I never said that [no amount of evidence could convince me that 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy], not once, and if I have I would like for you to quote me and link me to the page in which I did.

Just because you're trying to call me out, here it is, so people can judge for themselves:


Oh, and just answer me one more little question: What would it take for you to change your mind about 9/11 being an inside job? It would be very easy to change my mind about it being an attack by Islamic nationalists opposed to U.S. imperialism; one piece of incontrovertible evidence would do.

You're being dishonest if you don't admit that absolutely nothing will change your mind about this conspiracy theory; whether you recognize it or not you have taken it on faith rather than reason.


A lot, it would definitely take a lot considering 9/11 is not an isolated incident and is one in a serious designed to traumatize the proletariat both in America and internationally while simultaneously trying to accomplish imperial and corporate objectives that span the course of decades and involving numerous players and variables. It's assuming first and foremost that al-Qaeda was not a creation of the CIA to combat Soviet liberation of various nations in a region which would be placing sensitive resources the international bourgeoisie couldn't exploit fully, like drunken cowboys, in peril. Bin laden himself had high security CIA training during the Soviet-Afghan war. The CIA and thus American government poured billions into this fictional group. Now presently, there is evidence that this "al-Qaeda," and it's ties to and involvement as the "rebels," in countries whom won't play ball like Libya and more presently, Syria. I agree with you things don't just appear out of thin air so in order for me to believe the official narrative would be dependent on numerous variables. [i.e., there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence" for you and hence you cannot be convinced]

And it's funny that you're trying to criticize me on the basis of "intellectual honesty" considering you had never heard of the concept before the 9/11 thread.


I don't know if Vox Populi is being mislead by right wing libertarians (which is who the conspiracy nuts really are) or he's an actual reactionary that needs to be restricted.

I definitely don't think VP needs to be restricted or anything, but I'm really starting to think we should have some sort of "no platform policy" for this kind of shit. What exactly do we have to gain by allowing this kind of right-wing propaganda on the main board that could not also be applied to the policy on fascism?

edit: And wouldn't it also be entertaining to double the fun of fascists complaining about a lack of freedom of speech here - as in, being able to read people complaining on AboveTopSecret about how we're the spokesheeple for the NWO-ZOG-Presbyterian conspiracy?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

See the above but not really, most people in the West still think jihad means "holy war." What the fuck does it matter?


For al Qaeda to be a viable organization or front group, it needs to be something believable to most Arabs.



No, the two aren't comparable, so yeah, what're you talking about?


You're accusing me of supporting the government because I don't believe every outlandish claim is accurate.


"Al-Qaeda," used NATO ally Turkey as a springboard to enter Syria, come on. The Free Syrian Army's influence is questionable. That's ultimately irrelevant considering "al-Qaeda," is the US's guy on the inside.

You're just begging the question. "Al Qaeda is just America's guy on the inside. How do I know? Because al Qaeda invaded Syria on America's behalf and the other Syrian opposition groups are imaginary."


So, argumentum ad populum? Your assertions are validated and true because obviously everyone that knows something says so? I'm fairly confident that American oil firms still remain in Iraq. I'm pretty sure the Iraq war was a corporate victory. Dick Cheney cleared 39 billion for fuck's sake. Just because the American military proper left Iraq doesn't mean their still aren't numerous private contractors in the country. To honestly say that America doesn't have their fingers in the Iraqi pie still is pretty naive, imho.

It's not an appeal to popularity - people who would have no reason to lie have good evidence and good arguments for why and how Iran "won" Iraq and how Sunni and Shia militants alike made continued occupation untenable. Now Iran has much more influence over Iraq than the US according to every insider I've ever heard talk about the issue.

Interestingly, if you look at the primary investors in Iraqi oilfields, it's as much Brazilian and Russian firms (if not more) than US and British firms. The US government went over a trillion dollars into debt and failed to actually expand its oil reserves. If you want to call that a strategic victory, fine by me.


I fail to see how "terrorism," differs from unconventional/guerrilla warfare, covert/black operations, psych ops and so on. Please do elaborate, I'm frightfully curious as you seem so very sure; considering there is no real definition of constitutes as "terrorism," either in law or in fact. It's all subjective bullshit and straw grabbing.

It's simply the use of sabotage to spread fear for political and military objectives. Terror is a military tool as much as any other.


Really? How do you know al-Qaeda exists? You're asserting that they do in the positive, so obviously there must be some objective proof that they do in fact exist. We know that the Taliban exists, we know that the IRA exists, but how do we know al-Qaeda exists? What evidence do you have to support it's existence that wouldn't be about as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Where did the alleged hijackers that "caused 9/11," receive their training? Where did the planes which were hijacked originate?

Does "al-Qaeda," just exist because you and NATO says it does? Because of those shitty bin Laden tapes? What proof is there that I seem to be missing?


The numerous attacks committed by al Qaeda, not only in Europe and the US but the Arab world? Their militants killing people, then themselves getting killed? The fact that numerous Islamic political groups including the Taliban and the Iranian government have viewed al Qaeda as very real allies or competitors depending on the context or time period?

How is the evidence for the IRA's existence any more objective? Or the evidence that the universe really exists and isn't just the Matrix?



I also think it's funny that at first, I was being criticized for believing in a "conspiracy," in general with "shadowy characters," but now this has shifted to I believe in the wrong conspiracy theory. :lol:

No, it's that your "conspiracies" cohere with what we actually know about how historical change, capitalist economics and international politics works.

[synthesis]

I think it's funny how many conspiracy theories could be made obsolete just by the conspiracists taking an introductory class at their local community college on the modern history of the Muslim world.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Just because you're trying to call me out, here it is, so people can judge for themselves:

:laugh:

So in other words, you've just decided to bold some shit and then added your own conclusions in bold on to what I had said. This is supposed to be some sort of 'smoking gun' that proves you're accusations against my person? Really?

I said it would take a lot and would be dependent upon several things but not that it would be impossible and or that there is no "incontrovertible evidence," that would convince me otherwise which might I add has yet to be seen. No on here has proved to me yet that the-Shitter or "al-Qaeda," or however you want to spell said group even exists.

Am I really supposed to believe the very same government whom said, on both sides, without a shadow of a doubt, to the point of war, that there were so called "weapons of mass destruction," in Iraq? That was so willing to send the poor to yet again be pawns for the bourgeoisie premised on an outright lie? Am I supposed to assume these are credible people? Really? The same people that sold crack to the poor in the 80s? The same people that lied about the gulf of Tonkin incident? The same government that continues to lie about the true numbers and percentages of unemployment? The same government that lied about the sinking of the USS Maine? Really? Those honest and upright people?

Oh, wait, I forgot about bin Laden's, Dr. Evil-esque lair:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/originalfortress-hoopa.jpg


I definitely don't think VP needs to be restricted or anything, but I'm really starting to think we should have some sort of "no platform policy" for this kind of shit. What exactly do we have to gain by allowing this kind of right-wing propaganda on the main board that could not also be applied to the policy on fascism?

In other words, you don't or can't debate me on the subject and find it annoying so I need to shut up and mind my own business based upon your ridiculous and unfounded accusation that any alternative theory other than the official reports on various incidents, is somehow "right-wing conspiracies." Apparently me, Fidel, Gaddafi, Chávez, and others were all under the spell of no-name, idiot libertarians. You're right, I need to shut up.

[#FF0000]

Am I really supposed to believe the very same government whom said, on both sides, without a shadow of a doubt, to the point of war, that there were so called "weapons of mass destruction," in Iraq? That was so willing to send the poor to yet again be pawns for the bourgeoisie premised on an outright lie? Am I supposed to assume these are credible people? Really? The same people that sold crack to the poor in the 80s? The same people that lied about the gulf of Tonkin incident? The same government that continues to lie about the true numbers and percentages of unemployment? The same government that lied about the sinking of the USS Maine? Really? Those honest and upright people?

meanwhile the same incompetent gov't that couldn't keep any of this under wraps was somehow able to carry out tons and tons of false-flag attacks and leave no actual compelling physical evidence.

being mistrustful of gov't doesn't mean you have to believe every dumb conspiracy theory that comes out, dogg. c'mon

[synthesis]

No on here has proved to me yet that the-Shitter or "al-Qaeda," or however you want to spell said group even exists.

Here again is the problem: what is an example of a piece of evidence that would help to prove that al-Qaeda exists? Literally anything you could think of that would push you towards believing that al-Qaeda exists. The most ludicrously unobtainable hypothetical evidence would be a valid response here.

(Don't forget to explain why this piece of evidence that you say would change your mind would be more persuasive than the hundreds, if not thousands, of history books and academic journal articles that have been written on the subject.)


Apparently me, Fidel, Gaddafi, Chávez, and others were all under the spell of no-name, idiot libertarians.

You're being sarcastic but in fact you speak truth.

And the whole "you can't debate what I'm saying" is precisely the same line that fascists use to complain about our no platform policy here. I can and have debated your ignorant solipsistic drivel, to the point where you couldn't even continue holding your head under the sand and left the discussion, and still it has proven fruitless in gaining any headway on dealing with these fucking stupid second amendment propaganda pieces with which you insist on polluting this forum. You can do better.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

meanwhile the same incompetent gov't that couldn't keep any of this under wraps was somehow able to carry out tons and tons of false-flag attacks and leave no actual compelling physical evidence.

All of the above is debatable. I mean, I am stating this based upon what we do know and there is evidences out there which could be brought up for discussion but apparently, that's impossible on this forum and as Synth proposes, said alternative theories shouldn't even have a platform to be discussed on a forum dedicated to the violent overthrow of the current system. Da fak is this shit?


being mistrustful of gov't doesn't mean you have to believe every dumb conspiracy theory that comes out, dogg. c'mon

And I don't, why you hatin?

[synthesis]

All of the above is debatable. I mean, I am stating this based upon what we do know and there is evidences out there which could be brought up for discussion but apparently, that's impossible on this forum and as Synth proposes, said alternative theories shouldn't even have a platform to be discussed on a forum dedicated to the violent overthrow of the current system. Da fak is this shit?

You think (or at least claim to think) this is about "alternative theories," but it's not. It's about an entire worldview that implies the powerlessness of the working class against the omnipotence of the Illuminati hivemind.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You think (or at least claim to think) this is about "alternative theories," but it's not. It's about an entire worldview that implies the powerlessness of the working class against the omnipotence of the Illuminati hivemind.

Or, or it's about your reading to much into my assertions and drawing your own conclusions which are often way out of pocket, inaccurate, baseless and silly. If anything, I will always point out that this alternative theories inherently means some "right-wing Weltanschauung," bullshit is just that, bullshit.

[Ravachol]

This thread:

http://i.imgur.com/NdR4ETT.png

[Creative Destruction]

Actually that isn't entirely true. Depending upon the context it could mean things such as "base," or "ground," or "norm," and so on. The phrase "ana raicha al Qaeda," means "I'm going to the toilet." Which is to say, my original assertion that "al-Qaeda," means "the toilet," isn't necessarily wrong or off base.

It is wrong and off-base, though. You're completely stripping the word of it's important context in order to render it absurd. "al-Qaeda" in this context is best thought of as "The Base." Osama bin Laden gave the reasoning for the name:


BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The real government plot will be them trying to convince everyone that tsa agents lead heroic lives for a few weeks after this.

[bcbm]

Actually that isn't entirely true. Depending upon the context it could mean things such as "base," or "ground," or "norm," and so on. The phrase "ana raicha al Qaeda," means "I'm going to the toilet." Which is to say, my original assertion that "al-Qaeda," means "the toilet," isn't necessarily wrong or off base.

can you point me to anywhere this is supported with evidence? the one link i've managed to find that wasn't some sort of truther/conspiracy/infowars/whatever website suggested the 'link' here is tenuous.


How?

while some funding or arms may have gone from us/nato to al qaeda groups, its hardly a consistent and across the board 'overwhelming support.' seems mostly accidental, especially given what transpired later.


I've never understood why people get into this whole selective incompetence of the American government, the CIA and so on.

because you're asking us to believe that these are the same people pulling off antics that would be enough to bring these agencies to the ground, if not the entire state. if the dod picked up wind that the cia had even a sliver of involvement in staging something like 9/11 they would have crucified them because they wanted to butt in on the cia's turf for quite some time.


I am, geesh, lol.

not that i've seen

[#FF0000]

All of the above is debatable. I mean, I am stating this based upon what we do know and there is evidences out there which could be brought up for discussion but apparently, that's impossible on this forum and as Synth proposes, said alternative theories shouldn't even have a platform to be discussed on a forum dedicated to the violent overthrow of the current system. Da fak is this shit?

Yo I understand "alternative theories" when we're talking about something legitimately contentious with conflicting evidence and sources, but there is no evidence here. All one gets with conspiracy theories like this are "yo check out this wild coincidence" which simply isn't enough, even if there are a lot of coincidences.

Especially when we're talking about a thing happening after a training exercise which these bodies carry out very often.


And I don't, why you hatin?

i'm not hatin though I just think you're too smart for this bugs bunny shit.

[Sasha]

Again, no one is swallowing the government line on alqaida hook and sinker (pun intended), obviously the organization, as far as its an organization in the traditional sense at all, is far more an fluid, decentrialised beast than the US government wants us to believe. And ofcourse the thread is exaggerated to push through the shock doctrine and other shit.
There are serious question to be asked so why play in their hands and demand answers to silly ones.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

For al Qaeda to be a viable organization or front group, it needs to be something believable to most Arabs.

Alright, I've already conceded that no "al-Qaida," does not necessarily mean "the toilet," in every context however it does mean it, in most day-to-day contexts, which is hilarious.

Not to be to condescending, but do you know what a front group is? Can you define it for me, please?


You're accusing me of supporting the government because I don't believe every outlandish claim is accurate.

No, I'm accusing you of defending the official narrative of various incidents, the "war or terrorism," shit, and defending the government against various accusations I have made. I never said you were supporting the government; if I have, please point it out.


You're just begging the question. "Al Qaeda is just America's guy on the inside. How do I know? Because al Qaeda invaded Syria on America's behalf and the other Syrian opposition groups are imaginary."

I never said the other Syrian oppositional groups are imaginary, where did I say this? I said America specifically vis a vis "al-Qaida," has a group which it can arm, fund and back, in the Syrian conflict. Obviously America can't have any direct or explicit influence in the conflict considering the whole Russia telling America, "if you place on fucking boot here, shit will get real," debacle over the chemical weapons incident. Not only this but "al-Qaida," has been linked to several other oppositional groups such as ISIS in Northern Syria, for example.


It's not an appeal to popularity - people who would have no reason to lie have good evidence and good arguments for why and how Iran "won" Iraq and how Sunni and Shia militants alike made continued occupation untenable. Now Iran has much more influence over Iraq than the US according to every insider I've ever heard talk about the issue.

The above is an extremely simplistic summation of what has happened in regards to the Iraq war. Though I will admit that Iran was/is NATO's chief competitor over strategic control of Iraq.


Interestingly, if you look at the primary investors in Iraqi oilfields, it's as much Brazilian and Russian firms (if not more) than US and British firms. The US government went over a trillion dollars into debt and failed to actually expand its oil reserves. If you want to call that a strategic victory, fine by me.

The following corporate entities, just to name a few, profited immensely from the Iraq war.

-Halliburton
-Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp
-Washington Group International
-Environmental Chemical
-Aegis
-International American Products
-Erinys
-Fluor
-Tutor Perini
-URS Corporation
-Parsons
-Armor Holdings/BAE
-L3 Communications
-AM General
-Cummins
-GlobalRisk Strategies
-ControlRisks
-Bechtel
-Nour USA
-General Dynamics

As far as oil and energy are concerned, Iraq has tight restrictions on drilling for oil which doesn't make it really all to profitable, which is why British and American firms don't have a large presence there as opposed to Chinese, Russian and Brazilian firms, which is profitable more in terms of energy, not cold hard cash. You would have higher profit margins in areas which have less restrictions obviously because then American/British firms can just go HAM.

Not mentioning the fact that it's Chinese oil firms whom has been buying nearly half of Iraq's oil, following the war. This leaves China less dependent upon Iranian oil and considering China is the world's leading oil importer, their importation dictates the demand prices for the whole global market. Which is to say, as China diversifies it's energy portfolio, as it were, this could drive down the oil importation rates for America.

Russian, Brazilian and Chinese oil firms profiting from the Iraq war really signifies nothing considering we're talking about a global energy market. It's not really a zero-sum game; it's not a chess game.

If you seriously can not see how the Iraq war was a victory for American/UK corporate entities then I don't know what to tell you.


It's simply the use of sabotage to spread fear for political and military objectives. Terror is a military tool as much as any other.

Alright, however, I don't see how this really proves the existence of "terrorism." The above definition is so vague it could apply to virtually any anything.


The numerous attacks committed by al Qaeda, not only in Europe and the US but the Arab world? Their militants killing people, then themselves getting killed? The fact that numerous Islamic political groups including the Taliban and the Iranian government have viewed al Qaeda as very real allies or competitors depending on the context or time period?

What "numerous attacks," in Europe, America and the Arab world? 7/7, 11-M, and other incidents seems about as dodgy as 9/11, not to mention you haven't really provided any "incontrovertible," evidences to suggest that this "al-Qaida," is indeed responsible. These suicide missions also, can't really be offered as "incontrovertible," proof either. Also, within the context of this conversation, I think it's odd that you're now supporting yet another Bush administration myth, of this Iran-Al-Qaida myth as well, which is pretty funny, considering everyone keeps going on and on about Prison Planet and Alex Jones in regards to my positions. Not to mention the fact that former PM Ahmadinejad didn't believe in the official narrative concerning 9/11 either.

Thus far, again, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest "al-Qaida," does indeed exist aside from, it exists because the American government and it's NATO allies says it exists. There seems to be about as much evidence for Sasquatch as there is "al-Qaida."


How is the evidence for the IRA's existence any more objective? Or the evidence that the universe really exists and isn't just the Matrix?

:rolleyes: Now you're just being silly and dodging the question.


No, it's that your "conspiracies" cohere with what we actually know about how historical change, capitalist economics and international politics works.

Actually, they do, throughout history deception, treachery, terror and mayhem have been used by numerous states, empires and so on to accomplish various political and economic objectives. False flag operations are nothing new and can be observed throught history even as far as the Russo-Swedish war of 1788. I don't see how exactly endorsing an alternative theory in this regard is incoherent with what we know of historical change, economics, international politics and so on. You also have not elaborated, really, on how this is true.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Alright, I've already conceded that no "al-Qaida," does not necessarily mean "the toilet," in every context however it does mean it, in most day-to-day contexts, which is hilarious.

Not to be to condescending, but do you know what a front group is? Can you define it for me, please?


I obviously know what a front group is, and it's not particularly pertinent to my argument anyhow.



No, I'm accusing you of defending the official narrative of various incidents, the "war or terrorism," shit, and defending the government against various accusations I have made. I never said you were supporting the government; if I have, please point it out.


I'm not defending the narrative, you're viewing the narrative in black and white terms and seeing anyone as having any kind of agreement with it as "defending" it. I strongly disagree with NATO's narrative of events, just in a different way than you do.



I never said the other Syrian oppositional groups are imaginary, where did I say this? I said America specifically vis a vis "al-Qaida," has a group which it can arm, fund and back, in the Syrian conflict. Obviously America can't have any direct or explicit influence in the conflict considering the whole Russia telling America, "if you place on fucking boot here, shit will get real," debacle over the chemical weapons incident. Not only this but "al-Qaida," has been linked to several other oppositional groups such as ISIS in Northern Syria, for example.


The point is that there's no objective proof that the US government is knowingly arming al Qaeda in Syria or anywhere else, and even if there was, it wouldn't be proof that the US government is directing or controlling al Qaeda. There is certainly less of that than of the existence of al Qaeda as an independent organization.



The above is an extremely simplistic summation of what has happened in regards to the Iraq war. Though I will admit that Iran was/is NATO's chief competitor over strategic control of Iraq.


You say its "simplistic" but you don't say why. The point is that Iraq's ruling parties are largely beholden to Iranian interests before American interests, and that's not an oversimplification.



The following corporate entities, just to name a few, profited immensely from the Iraq war.

-Halliburton
-Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp
-Washington Group International
-Environmental Chemical
-Aegis
-International American Products
-Erinys
-Fluor
-Tutor Perini
-URS Corporation
-Parsons
-Armor Holdings/BAE
-L3 Communications
-AM General
-Cummins
-GlobalRisk Strategies
-ControlRisks
-Bechtel
-Nour USA
-General Dynamics

As far as oil and energy are concerned, Iraq has tight restrictions on drilling for oil which doesn't make it really all to profitable, which is why British and American firms don't have a large presence there as opposed to Chinese, Russian and Brazilian firms, which is profitable more in terms of energy, not cold hard cash. You would have higher profit margins in areas which have less restrictions obviously because then American/British firms can just go HAM.

Not mentioning the fact that it's Chinese oil firms whom has been buying nearly half of Iraq's oil, following the war. This leaves China less dependent upon Iranian oil and considering China is the world's leading oil importer, their importation dictates the demand prices for the whole global market. Which is to say, as China diversifies it's energy portfolio, as it were, this could drive down the oil importation rates for America.

Russian, Brazilian and Chinese oil firms profiting from the Iraq war really signifies nothing considering we're talking about a global energy market. It's not really a zero-sum game; it's not a chess game.

If you seriously can not see how the Iraq war was a victory for American/UK corporate entities then I don't know what to tell you.


I'm not disputing that the war benefited various corporate entities. I'm disputing the idea that it benefited the American economy as a whole. It did profit a number of enterprises, but it cost America as a whole more than it gave. If the US really wanted to just benefit its companies, and that was the rationale for war alone, it could have just given them a bunch of tax loopholes without undermining the state of the economy as a whole.

The fact that energy players from China and Russia have profited much more shows how American corporations have not been the primary beneficiaries for the war. If the war was some grand conspiracy by US forces to control Iraqi oil, it wouldn't have been hard for them to have done more to help American businesses during the bidding process.



Alright, however, I don't see how this really proves the existence of "terrorism." The above definition is so vague it could apply to virtually any anything.


For one thing, it applies quite clearly to blowing up a plane as anti-Castro Cuban terrorists have done, and not to firebombing cities as the USAF has done. It is true that both cause terror, but one is achieved through infiltration and sabotage while the other is achieved through direct military assault. They also produce a different kind of terror, as the fear of a bombing is tangible, while the fear of terrorism is less so (which is WHY it is such a useful political tool) There is a categorical difference there, and it is a useful one, regardless of the political uses of the term.



What "numerous attacks," in Europe, America and the Arab world? 7/7, 11-M, and other incidents seems about as dodgy as 9/11, not to mention you haven't really provided any "incontrovertible," evidences to suggest that this "al-Qaida," is indeed responsible. These suicide missions also, can't really be offered as "incontrovertible," proof either. Also, within the context of this conversation, I think it's odd that you're now supporting yet another Bush administration myth, of this Iran-Al-Qaida myth as well, which is pretty funny, considering everyone keeps going on and on about Prison Planet and Alex Jones in regards to my positions. Not to mention the fact that former PM Ahmadinejad didn't believe in the official narrative concerning 9/11 either.


To say that those are the only cases of al Qaeda attacks is Eurocentric - there are almost daily bombings occurring in Iraq right now, largely against the Shiite population. I don't see how countless terrorist attacks are any less "incontrovertible truth" than anything else.

You misunderstand what I'm saying about Iran and al Qaeda. I did NOT say that they were allies, I said "allies OR COMPETITORS". Al Qaeda has been a long time foe of the Iranian government, and they certainly seem to believe that it exists. They are also a foe of Iran's allies, as evidenced by the extreme sectarian violence in Iraq during the war between Sunni fundamentalists (including al Qaeda) and Shia paramilitaries. You'd think if this was all such an obvious elaborate conspiracy from the CIA, that the Iranian government might have figured that out.



Thus far, again, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest "al-Qaida," does indeed exist aside from, it exists because the American government and it's NATO allies says it exists. There seems to be about as much evidence for Sasquatch as there is "al-Qaida."


That's just because you dismiss all the evidence without reasons. Bombings in England? They're "fishy" too. Bombings in Iraq? Don't need to talk about them. Actual self-admitted al Qaeda members existing? They're just CIA agents in disguise.



:rolleyes: Now you're just being silly and dodging the question.


Not at all. We have dead al Qaeda members, living al Qaeda members, and terrorist attacks they have committed, as well as all their public pronouncements. We know the backstory to many of these people and how they were once Sunni conservatives who became radicalized. We have places where they or their allies have control. We have as much "Evidence" that they exist as the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, rabbits, the moon and the fact that reality exists.



Actually, they do, throughout history deception, treachery, terror and mayhem have been used by numerous states, empires and so on to accomplish various political and economic objectives. False flag operations are nothing new and can be observed throught history even as far as the Russo-Swedish war of 1788. I don't see how exactly endorsing an alternative theory in this regard is incoherent with what we know of historical change, economics, international politics and so on. You also have not elaborated, really, on how this is true.

Yes I know all about the history of false flag operations. False flag operations are different from an organization which exists for over 20 years, committing numerous attacks, building a large propaganda base, recruiting from a large population and carving out a substantial ideological niche for itself. Especially when the agents and organizersof these "false flag" operations end up dead.

As much as anything else a false flag operation on that scale over that time period, aside from being impossible to achieve logistically, would eventually just get exposed by accident.

On the other hand, there is VERY solid evidence for the premise that imperialistic intervention in a foreign culture with military power that brings new forms of economic hierarchy produce a significant popular backlash, and create the opportunity for very real social and military responses. To say that the IRA, Tamil Tigers and ETA are different is to imply that somehow the Irish, Tamil and Basque responses to colonialism and imperialism are somehow different from the Sunni Arab response. Of course they aren't, and the existence of colonialism, global neoliberalism and Imperialism serves as a much more intuitive explanation of how al Qaeda came to exist than by attributing it to an all knowing CIA.