American Intellectualism...

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Tokorona, don't give me that crap.

I'm not going to wander off to someone else's skepticism website to ask them whether they think The Razor supports the idea of Bush funding the Taliban because he wanted the Trade Center blown up or because he's a fvcking idiot. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

I mean heck, you can read the shockingly fresh revisionism from this very year about how The Bush Administration's gift of 43 million dollars to the Taliban wasn't to the Taliban per se, but was in fact to the afghani people who happened to be at that time governed by the Taliban. That's apparently totally different.

But let's not kid ourselves. It's not different. If you funnel money into a country that's ruled by a terrorist regime, you're giving money to that terrorist regime. It doesn't matter if you have the secretary of state announce that the regime is a bunch of naughty boys whilst handing the bags of money over - in fact doing so might even make things worse.

And hey, I'm not getting this from some sort of respectable news source. If I was doing that, I'd just do what I already did, which was to post a link to the LA times from May of 2001 where they complain about giving aid to the Taliban in an editorial.

No, we're talking about the people of the crazy tin-foil-hat-brigade from Leftwatch, Spinsanity, and The Phoenix. These right-wing whackos have gone to great lengths to excuse the 2001 payments to Afghanistan and that's the best they can come up with.

Not that $43 million in aid didn't go to Afghanistanin 2001, but that... um... it wasn't directed to the people who had an iron fisted grip on the entire country. And that makes it OK. And not an overt payment to the terrorist organization which later that year destroyed the WTC.

:rolleyes:

---

Seriously, under the Bush administration, real money and supplies went from the government to the Taliban. That's very public knowledge, and even Bush's most fervent supporters aren't seriously arguing that. They are arguing that there were mitigating factors that make such payments OK.

-Username17
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Crissa »

Aren't we giving less money to the current government of Afghanistan, if you don't count the work done by NATO troops in country, this year?

Oop, nope, it's 10x as much. (...a fifth of what we give to Israel, though. A tenth of what went to Iraq...)

...Wait, why are we giving them ten times as much and they aren't able to not grow poppies in return?

-Crissa
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

What do you mean? They've grown more opium than ever before. Heck, in 2004 they grew the most ever! 64% more than the previous year. While as in 2006, they grew the most opium ever! growing 50% more than they had the year before.

Fields come into and go out of cultivation of course, but the trend is alarming. Ever since the United States occupied the country, Afghanistan's opium production has been rocketting to crazy town.

And yet... the United States still does not list Afghanistan as a drug producing country. Interesting that. You know, with the United States singling out Venezuela (and Myanmar) of failing to stop the production of narcotics in their country, while Afghanistan isn't even a drug producing country and the United Nations lists them as producing 92% of the entire world's supply of Opium poppies.

-Username17
User avatar
Cielingcat
Duke
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Cielingcat »

Venezuela is run by an EVUL COMMIE DICTATOR though. Even though he was actually lawfully elected despite our assassination attempts.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1180752688[/unixtime]]Look what Tokorona has been up to:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... r]Pdoherty


Thanks. And that, boys and girls, is why I don't go to other peoples' pet forums. Anyone who "can't find" evidence of the United States funding terrorism after 1995 - or any date - can't find their ass with both hands.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is currently in operation. It's a terrorism training program and has been since 1946. It's smaller than it used to be. But seriously, it's not like we stopped the program.

And since JREF managed to accuse people of trolling and lying and not really offering any facts at all, I have concluded that it's not... really... a good source of information. Or really a source of information, since noone provided any answers to the questions presented.

Seriously Tokorona, if you want to know what we're talking about, just have the nuts to ask us. It's not like we won't tell you. You might learn something.

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Excuse me a second.

PDohetry? Why don't you actually address - oh, right! YOU DON'T AHVE HTE MENTAL CAPACITY TO DO SO.

And why.. oh, right, you wer BANNED at JREF for trolling. Attempt to exercise what's left of your decency. (But I am glad tos ee you have stopped sock puppeting. PROGRESS!)

In short. DIe troll, die.

ALright!
The thing is (and htis is no offense) I tend to trust sources that have in the past provided good research. Like Loose Change Rebuttles (and a detailed NORAD Thing)

.. so I'll ask you then, Frank. Can you provide more detail? I only found one source, a May 2001 funding to Taliban to fight Drugs.

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Wow. No name, bad spelling, we're off to a great start.

But actually, we're better than that here. We allow people to post without even logging in or signing up as a user. We actually take the time to answer questions and back up our viewpoints with more than a thrown beer can or a snide remark.

nameless wrote:.. so I'll ask you then, Frank. Can you provide more detail? I only found one source, a May 2001 funding to Taliban to fight Drugs.


More detail about... what? About past uses of faked or government sponsored attacks on Americans in order to gain Causus Beli on other nations? About Bush administration funds to international terrorism? About the Bush Administration's total lack of credibility on all subjects? We're talking about more than one thing here, and I can get to them one at a time I suppose.

Let's start with the first, because that tends to come before other things. The United States has a long and glorious history of fabricating or sponsoring attacks against its own people for political gain.

From The Alamo (which involved sending Americans into Mexican territory to get killed in a counter-attack) to the Gulf of Tonkin (which was entirely staged and never happened).

So was 9/11 faked? Almost certainly not. Real people died that day and clouds of toxic fumes floated through the second largest city in North America. It's pretty hard to fake something like that.

But the other question: Was 9/11 knowingly Sponsored by the Republican? That question is more open ended. And honestly, I don't care. Because regardless of whether they knew they were sponsoring it, they did sponsor it. As a Utilitarian, I really honestly don't care whether they knew they were doing it or not.

Here's some examples.

Yes, Mohammed Atta was kept alive for years on a scholarship from Henry Kissinger, and then he was trained how to fly by Jerry Falwell. And I don't care whether they are stupid or evil - they can be two things.

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

That last post was me.

While your links are interesting, they raise questions.

1. Did Kissinger personally green light him? Was he aware of his aims? Did he have time to review the scholars? Remember, he is in 50 some boards. (This is all assuming the link is true, which is something I have doubts on.)


2. It presumes guilt. Seriously, it could have a much simpler explanation.. (the link is also odd)

To address your comment about idiocy and on purpose... I disagree. If one unknowingly causes great pain, while they should be held accountable.. it's not as bad as if they knowingly do it. Idiocy is not always evil.

-- Tokorona
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Tokorona wrote:To address your comment about idiocy and on purpose... I disagree. If one unknowingly causes great pain, while they should be held accountable.. it's not as bad as if they knowingly do it. Idiocy is not always evil.


If you are unwilling to take that step, why even bother talking about conspiracy theories? The discussions, the meetings, the memos sent back and forth are all burned and tossed into the ash pail of history. There is no way to know whether Kissinger planned for Atta to eventually attack the United States, and forgoing judgement until you can be certain of that is simply an excuse to forgo passing judgement forever.

There are facts you can know, and there are facts that you cannot know. You can't ever really know why people did anything, and because of that, you can't really know why any event occurred. All you can know is what actions were neccessary for events to take place, and since that's all you get - that's as close to a cause as you can ever have.

Sorry. Jerry Falwell is dead and we will never ever know why he gave special financial considerations to the financially insolvent Huffman Aviation - a company whose only notable achievement was getting visas and flight training for Mohammed Atta and friends.

I don't presume "guilt", I presume to not give a flying rat's ass whether events were the inevitable consequence of gross negligence or the result of years of preparation and dastardly scheming. I don't care because the input is that these people who claim to protect us from physical and moral assault actually gave succor and training to our enemies for years and the end result is that these same enemies used this training to end the lives of thousands of Americans.

---

So often the basic Conspiracy Theory argument is framed in an essentially pointless and destructive cycle:
  • First, the theorist proposes that there existed specific collusion between various individuals or groups on the grounds that something horrible happened.

  • Then, the debunker comes in and uses The Razor to argue persuasively that specific collusion between all of the named indiviuals and groups in precisely the manner described is unlikely and can therefore be discounted. And thus, everything is OK.


But you know what? Things aren't OK. The entire premise of the first argument is that something horrible happened, and the second argument doesn't refute that at all. It's just a disguised ad hominem attack. Yoour conclusion does not follow from your premises, therefore you're a bad person, therefore your premises are false. That's bullshit.

See, the following Argument is Invalid:
  1. Kissinger financed Atta learning to fly a plane.
  2. Atta used his knowledge of plane flying to kill thousands of Americans.

  3. Therefore: Atta planned with Kissinger to kill thousands of Americans.


But the following counter argument is equally invalid:
  1. Any particular conversation that you have no direct evidence of is unlikely to have occurred.
  2. You have no direct testimony of Kissinger speaking with Atta.
  3. Therefore it is unlikely that Kissinger and Atta had a conversation about Atta's long term plans to kill Americans.

  4. Therefore everything is OK.


The second argument isn't just invalid, it's flat wrong. It's not OK, thousands of people died. Up to point 3 it's just a "yes it is/no it's not" argument about probability. That's a matter of opinion and I don't even care. But point 4 is where one goes from "skeptical" to "crank case".

Skepticism doesn't mean shit if you don't get some facts. And really honest skepticism is willing to make do with the limits of available knowledge and make the more modest claims that are possible and sufficient.

The claim is not "Kissinger plotted 9/11!" - that could easily be true but it's unknowable. The claim is "Kissinger's contribution was vital to the success of 9/11 and both he and his allies profitted from it." That's the only claim you can make, and it's good enough.

-Username17
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by PhoneLobster »

Holy crap those shits over there on that link are bad mouthing ME.

And fvck it, I'm as vague as ever, because I couldn't be assed storing a bibliography on ever piece of information I've ever encountered.

But someone is seriously going to argue against me being vague by themselves being VAGUE-ER (is that a word?).

Damnit James Randi (...remotely related forum). What sort of excuse for debunking is that?

And I mean holy shit, remember the batshit tinfoil things I'm supposedly lieing through my teeth over are...
1) That claims 9/11 could not have been imagined is a bunch of demonstrably laughable ass.

2) That Bush and CO let 9/11 happen and then benefited from it. I mean crap, thats like basically established history, degree and motive is the only battle ground and thats not even really a major issue of dispute.

3) That the US sponsors bloody coups in South America.

What are they going to debunk next? (primarily by calling me a liar) This crazy new conspiracy about the earth being round?

And sorry, anyone who is capable of buying into and repeating the "Blinded by Bush Hatred" talking point, as a means of debunking anything, or just to repeat for fun, is a SERIOUS loser and should not be given the time of day by respectable folks.

Now someone find me a Chauvenista forum for ME to direct people to... I totally dig the great new Bolivarian revolution and I would love a group of people to insult those I disagree with, they would probably even do it in passionate leftist Spanish, which would be totally cooler.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1180752688[/unixtime]]Look what Tokorona has been up to:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... r]Pdoherty
Pdoh = intellectual equivalent to dirt
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1180801927[/unixtime]]Pdoh = intellectual equivalent to dirt


Wonderful. You guys are just great fun. I don't actually know who Pdoh is, so I took some time to find some of his "dirt".

Here it is.

Right. I don't actually know who I believe in that particular debate, I don't really care that much. I'm not sure it actually matters whether the Fire Fighters were withdrawn because they knew the WTC7 building was going to collapse or because they knew they were going to bring it down so that it didn't fall over and possibly domino other buildings. Either option sounds like plausible emergency management and I wouldn't shake my fist at a fire chief who made either call under the kinds of stress he was under at the time.

But I can say that "The Doc" came up with basically horse shit and I don't respect his argument style. It's pretty clear that Pdoherty "won" that debate considering how often The Doc was forced to fall back to the tired remember the firefighters! line of appeal to emmotion.

---

So that seems to be the way of it for the yutzes at JREF. Apparently you get props there for "debunking", so basically people sit around being negative. I'm sure that they'd come out against such "conspiracy theories" as:
  • RJ Reynolds kept a lid on scientific research linking tobacco with deadly diseases for years in order to make money selling a known deadly and addictive product to children.

  • The Japanese Empire captured thousands of Korean women and forced them into sex slavery in order to keep up the morale of their soldiers and bind those soldiers to the fate of the empire to encourage them to fight to the death in its defense.


Seriously, some "conspiracies" are in fact real. Arguing against a theory requires fact. You can't just fall back on Occam's Razor and say "Nuh-uh!" over and over again. That doesn't make you a skeptic, that makes you a luddite!

Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. It allows you to discount conclusions without enough supporting premises. It allows you to not believe in the possible on the grounds that it is unlikely. But it doesn't allow you to ignore facts. If someone has a fact, you can't use Occam's Razor to doubt the fact, only to doubt unlikely conclusions that fact makes possible.

---

So really, the people at JREF are idiots. Spiteful, horrible, morons. They don't do what they claim to be doing, they just stand around making asses of themselves. Any time someone does present a possible conspiracy theory, the fools at JREF apparently just circle jerk themselves with a bunch of ad hominem attacks.

The JREF forums are the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of frat boys sitting around saying "Hurr Hurr Hurr". But it's worse than that. It's worse because they present themselves as being Skeptics in the modern sense of people looking at available facts to determine likely conclusions and unlikely conclusions, to limit their claims to those modest ones which can be proven and to limit their beliefs to those possibilities which are considered probable. But actually they are just Cynics in the Ancient Greek sense of a bunch of filthy naked men who run around biting people.

What a waste.

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

So often the basic Conspiracy Theory argument is framed in an essentially pointless and destructive cycle:
* First, the theorist proposes that there existed specific collusion between various individuals or groups on the grounds that something horrible happened.

* Then, the debunker comes in and uses The Razor to argue persuasively that specific collusion between all of the named indiviuals and groups in precisely the manner described is unlikely and can therefore be discounted. And thus, everything is OK.

But you know what? Things aren't OK. The entire premise of the first argument is that something horrible happened, and the second argument doesn't refute that at all. It's just a disguised ad hominem attack. Yoour conclusion does not follow from your premises, therefore you're a bad person, therefore your premises are false. That's bullshit.


This argument is nonsensical. First off, the argument refutes a specific premise, making his conclusion shaky. The next two assertions you list aren't really made unless the rebuttal "You were wrong about the collusion, therefore you are ALWAYS wrong" is made.

1. Any particular conversation that you have no direct evidence of is unlikely to have occurred.
2. You have no direct testimony of Kissinger speaking with Atta.
3. Therefore it is unlikely that Kissinger and Atta had a conversation about Atta's long term plans to kill Americans.


It IS an invalid argument. .except 2 is "Where is your FACTS" No evidence, no argument.(Incidently, I would have been happy with verifable indirect evidnce.)

"Kissinger's contribution was vital to the success of 9/11 and both he and his allies profitted from it."


Breaking this down.
A. Kissinger's contribution was vital to the success of 9/11 <- unproven.
B. both he and his allies profitted from it. <- too vague.

In short.. this post contains nothing that proves your point.


ETA: Congrats, Frank. You're about as bad as P.. no, you post actual arguments. NEVERMIND.

So, tearing into these. I'll try to remain civil, though.

But I can say that "The Doc" came up with basically horse shit and I don't respect his argument style. It's pretty clear that Pdoherty "won" that debate considering how often The Doc was forced to fall back to the tired remember the firefighters! line of appeal to emmotion.


That's not an argument to emotion. It';s an argument to force Pdohetry to admit they were complicit or not. That simple.

So that seems to be the way of it for the yutzes at JREF. Apparently you get props there for "debunking", so basically people sit around being negative. I'm sure that they'd come out against such "conspiracy theories" as:

Ad hom. [1]

* RJ Reynolds kept a lid on scientific research linking tobacco with deadly diseases for years in order to make money selling a known deadly and addictive product to children.


That is an actual conspiracy. As such, it is not debated in the COnspiracy Theory forum. More in the History and Poltiics forum. Strawman [2]

* The Japanese Empire captured thousands of Korean women and forced them into sex slavery in order to keep up the morale of their soldiers and bind those soldiers to the fate of the empire to encourage them to fight to the death in its defense.


See above. See note [3]. (Strawman [2])

Seriously, some "conspiracies" are in fact real. Arguing against a theory requires fact. You can't just fall back on Occam's Razor and say "Nuh-uh!" over and over again. That doesn't make you a skeptic, that makes you a luddite!

See above.

Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. It allows you to discount conclusions without enough supporting premises. It allows you to not believe in the possible on the grounds that it is unlikely. But it doesn't allow you to ignore facts. If someone has a fact, you can't use Occam's Razor to doubt the fact, only to doubt unlikely conclusions that fact makes possible.


Actually, JREF's CT forum (and this is a subforum, which I will tackle later) usually ends up pointing the facts are inerror, not hte conclusions. WIth no facts, you hae no argument..
---

So really, the people at JREF are idiots. Spiteful, horrible, morons. They don't do what they claim to be doing, they just stand around making asses of themselves. Any time someone does present a possible conspiracy theory, the fools at JREF apparently just circle jerk themselves with a bunch of ad hominem attacks.


CT forum is a subforum, other boards aren't enarly as heated and more welcoming. Just not of people who ad hom.. more on that later.

The JREF forums are the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of frat boys sitting around saying "Hurr Hurr Hurr". But it's worse than that. It's worse because they present themselves as being Skeptics in the modern sense of people looking at available facts to determine likely conclusions and unlikely conclusions, to limit their claims to those modest ones which can be proven and to limit their beliefs to those possibilities which are considered probable. But actually they are just Cynics in the Ancient Greek sense of a bunch of filthy naked men who run around biting people.

What a waste.

-Username17


Ad hom central. [1] Seriously, what are you implying here? We're ignoring facts because you think the ones presented are true when they aren't? To queque?


[1] Excellent debate tactic when you cant' refute arguments, apparently
[2] YOu do this a lot, too
[3] This is a particulary vile insult, people people on the level of Holocaust revionists. But, apparently, you can't really seem to win an argument without getting insulting. Or lose one and insult in the blind hope someone responds in rage.


-- Tokorona
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Tokorona, of course I'm insulting your peeps at JREF. It's not even n ad hom attack, it's just me insulting them. I literally urinate in their drinking water.

And why?

Because they didn't make any argument at all. They have no position. No premises, no conclusions. It's not a debate, it's just an insult contest, and I have more pizazz than they do and have better insults.

Let's go through it one by one:

TAM wrote:Your Phonelobster friend over there is lying through his teeth. based on the detail he gives, he has been reading up on the CTs...no doubt. He is also, I think, blinded by BUSH hatred. He also, like all the kooks, believes a previous history of bad acts is enough to convict someone of all future suspected acts.


OK... there's no argument there. It's just "Phone Lobster is a bad person" - and that's it. He doesn't actually address any of Phone Lobster's claims at all. He just says that PL is lying, not even that he's wrong, just that he is deliberately deceitful. It's just an insult, and there's nothing to argue against.

Gravy wrote:His claims have no basis in reality.


Wonderful. A direct refutation rebuttal. The classic "No it isn't!" tactic. Whatever dude, nothign to see here, moving on.

scissorhands wrote:Prod him a bit and I bet theres lots more woo in there too.


No arguments again, just snickering from the lobby.

Mirage wrote:Well his majesty has spoken.

It must be so!


Someone actually calls them on their bullshit in their own forum. I wonder if this is the start of real debate?

beachnut wrote:Are you finished spamming the forum, and did you have anything of value to add? No?


Guess not. People making fun of people for not having anything to add are made fun of for not having anything to add! Brilliant!

slayhamlet wrote:Troll.


And more of the same...

foolmewunz wrote:This is becoming a common tactic of self-proclaimed visionary posters. All you need is two or three dedicated moonbats, and you can dominate a conversation on a lowly-attended board quite easily.


And an attack on our forum on the basis that it is small.

And that's it. There wasn't one productive thing said there. Not one. Noone had any facts, citations, or anything. I have. So right now I have... anything at all, and you have a bunch of internet trolls who insult people. Good job with that.

---

So here's my gauntlet: Tokorona, I want you to add one single productive thing to this conversation. Hell, you can crib something from your bunch of reactionary friends provided that they have ever said something productive about anything at any point in the past.

I'm waiting. Go ahead and provide one solitary piece of evidence that Kissinger's provision of funding and safe passage to Atta was unimportant or unhelpful. Or something. I don't even care. Just stop flaming people or running to your friends so that they can flame people.

I honestly don't know or care what you have against PDoh, but he's not even from here and flames against him are definitionally off topic.

----

The basic argument of intent falls into one of two categories, one is where you believe that people are basically goo, and one where you believe people are basically bad. Here they are:

  • People are basically Good at heart. When things turn out badly, that usually means that people failed or that circumstances turned out poorly in an unforseen fashion.

  • People are basically Good at stuff. Things generally turn out the way people intended them to, so when bad things happen it is usually because people did things to make bad things happen.


And the "people are bad" arguments are exactly the same. And you can mix and match with one person arguing that people are good at heart (or stuff) and the other person arguing that people are bad.

And I don't care, because I don't believe that intent is knowable or important. So I'm not going to have that classic conspiracy argument where one person shows a bunch of bad events and then we have a shit storm about whether one person planned it all or not. What I will say is merely that Atta's plane ticket to the US was paid for by a check that Kissinger stamped. And that's all I have to say.

Now the ball is in your court. Produce anything of value at all and maybe I'll stop openly mocking you amongst my friends.

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Well, present no facts, get ... nothing.

"Extraordrinary claims require extraordinary evidence." <- YOU make the claim, YOU defend it. I am not doing your research for you, and you should know proving a negative is near impossible.

(If you had read the first post, you would have note I conceded the debate, but wanted to know what you were saying so I could actually rebut it properly later... didn't get much, but eh.)

So, you are irritated that htey took vage claims and ust went "idiot?" Of course they would. They deal with this more than I do, they only respond when you present factsi n a debate manner else.. well, Frank, if I posted in a thread that D&D sucked with facts that aren't true repeatedly... you wouldn't rebut it, you'd insult me after time.

(It's telling you see an insult when they call this a small board.)

If you have a furhter problem with those posters, take it there.

Now. (PDoh is a special case. Ask about it there, too if you REALLY care, I'm not giving him any more attention)

1) The fact you don't care about intent does not mean that Kissinger or Bush is responsbile for it.

2) Again, the fact he signed it means nothing. Doesn't he sign a lot of otehrs too? Seeing as how Atta is not the sole responsible person

3) It's your responsibility to prove your claims.

So. After all this, you have no facts, just arguments full of fallacies and asserstions. Your perspective is excessively skewed to the point where you can no longer contemplate the opposing viewpoint's argument as valid. You have failed in every task of the most basic debater, and I am tired of it. If you want to go talk trash about me, go ahead! I don't care, honestly. I'm conceding the argument, due to incompetance.

-- Tokorona.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

... he signed for. That is, Kissinger signed for many exchange students.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

Tokorona wrote:I'm conceding the argument, due to incompetance.


Your incompetence or mine?

I like how we went from me putting down a couple of facts to Tokorona angrily gesticulating about me not having any facts, coupled with Tokorona not producing any facts or citations again.

But OK, here's his argument, it's even numbered:

1) The fact you don't care about intent does not mean that Kissinger or Bush is responsbile for it.
I don't know what this means. Kissinger signs for Atta, he's responsible for that. Me not caring about intent means that I don't even try to make the claim that because he's responsible for Atta having a chance to destroy the WTC that he intended for Atta to destroy the WTC. That's a much more difficult and irrelevent claim.
2) Again, the fact he signed it means nothing. Doesn't he sign a lot of otehrs too? Seeing as how Atta is not the sole responsible person
Wait a minute, you aren't seriously suggesting that because Kissinger doesn't have sole responsibility that he has no responsibility are you? Again, I'm not making a claim that Kissinger's involvement was the sole reason that he eventually flew a plane into the WTC. I'm just saying that Kissinger footed the bill for Atta to fly to Egypt, Turkey, and Syria in 1994 and 1995, and employed him as a tutor and "seminar participant" in 1996 and 1997.

That Atta got into Deutschland through the Congress-Bundestag program and ultimately into the United States the same way is no secret or mystery. That that program is funded by the US state department and had Kissinger as a board member is... les well known. But not a secret.

3) It's your responsibility to prove your claims.


Sure. Done and done.

That's the beauty of making really modest claims. By merely claiming that Kissinger's assistance to the 9/11 hijackers was there, all I have to do is show a single instance of Kissinger giving such assistance to a single hijacker. That's done.

I'm not arguing intent, I'm not arguing collusion, so I can just let that all rest.

---

I mean, I can very easily make an argument that the man who masterminded the US end of the Chilean 9/11 might be willing and able to mastermind similar powergrabs in other countries - like for example his own. But that's just a balance of evidence argument against perceptions of likelyhood. It's not an argument which can be won.

Sure, 9/11 fits Kissinger's known MO, and sure he has used that date in the past, but that's happenstance. And since I'm not actually making that argument I really should not have to listen to people refuting it time and time again with the Razor defense.

The only claim I'm actually making is that aid and succor was given to Atta for no discernable reason for years at a time and that Kissinger oversaw those awards. It's possible that they slipped by him somehow, but for the man who propped up Pinochet and Nixon I find the incomptence defense hard to take.

-Username17
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Crissa »

I think, Frank, they don't believe that Kissinger signed Atta into the country... Or that if he did, he was signed in with mmany others who didn't intend the country harm.

Either way, I don't particularly understand the insistence that we don't support terrorists when in fact we gave money to a regime the same year as calling them a state sponsor of terrorism, axis of evil, etc, etc. There's no evidence congress ever did stop appropriating money to send to them - a Republican congress, at that.

So... Buh?

Where's their facts? Any of them?

-Crissa
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by fbmf »

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Let's tone down the nastiness, folks.
[/TGFBS]
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Frankly Frank, ........

You cite "news" sources like Rense.com? Hopsicker? He's done more to discredit left/liberal investigative journalism than Wm. Randolph Hearst of Fox News did for the right*.

Read that article through, and please cite me the FACTS in it that lead you to believe that Kissinger signed the checks. (If you were speaking figuratively, not necessary, but if you actually believe that Kissinger was signing anything for CDS, you're wrong. He was a figure head.)


Hopsicker Wrote wrote:The story quoted a spokesman for "Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft," described as a "German international further education organisation," as having admitted paying Hamburg cadre principal Atta as a "scholarship holder" and "tutor," as the spokesman put it, between 1995 and 1997.


Do you even know the organization he's pointing to? I do. I've had trainees in my company who came through there. It's a trade promotion and German-language group. More important is to please note in the above paragraph the horrific standards of journalism he employs.
"...described as a..." Because that's what it is!
"...as the spokesman put it..." Because he was describing what Atta was doing in the organization.

All of this took place long before Atta had "turned".

Throughout Hopsicker's article he uses the same smarmy tactics. He hooks onto an interesting factoid and embroiders it into a crazy quilt the size of Sheboygan! He reviews other people's articles, picks holes in them and never goes to original source for anything. He's done the same in all his books. He's the past-master at "connecting the dots".

BTW, I'm FOOLMEWUNZ at JREF. As I mentioned over there, I think you'd be rather surprised that the Bushie Cheney Neo-Cons are in a vast minority. On the politics board (where you'd be more at home than the CT board which you visited briefly), you'd find a lot more Libertarian and Liberal posters than you'd imagine.

I just dropped in because Tokorana referred us to the thread, and I was curious. I don't hang out on more than a couple of boards, and gaming's not my thing, but you're more than welcome at the JREF Forum if you want to take the discussions any further. (Presuming you were being figurative in your threat to piss in our drinking water. I live in Hong Kong and you'd have to be rather well endowed to get to my water supply. :frowntobiggrin:)

*Please note that I criticize Hopsicker, like I criticize Michael Moore, with great disappointment. My politics run considerably left of center, and I find it disturbing that they're considered the standard-bearer for the left.

Ciao,
FMW

PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by PhoneLobster »

a useful fool wrote:A. I'm a liberal/left anti-Bush dude.
B. I believe Rense.
C. You don't believe Rense.
D. Therefore, you couldn't be A.

Fascinating, so in order to make an argument you basically acuse people of arguing a point they didn't, like say, you being a right wing asshole, then point out how false it is.

Welcome!

But sorry, simply declaring left wing credentials and then working on your "center" credentials by critizing some sources you don't like for being too "far left" isn't really an argument that has anything to do with anything now is it?

Might get you on fox news as a liberal however.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Simply declaring?

How about....


At every major rally ever dreamed of in the sixties. Hustling voters over the Parish lines in Louisiana to get 'em registered.

Fought the war in Viet Nam in Canada. Certified draft dodger, extraordinaire. Took a Presidential Pardon to get me off for my crimes against the state.

Ever been to meetings of the Fourth International, son?

Do you know the historical break between the Trotskyites and the Maoists? Did your sister act as the liaison for the post-war Viet Nam delegation to the UN?

Puh-lease! Save the pimply hyperbole for the kids, okay?


User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by User3 »

Oops, sorry.....

Forgot I was a visitor... That was FOOLMEWUNZ in the above post.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: American Intellectualism...

Post by Username17 »

I know you aren't from here, so I'll spell it out:

The moderator already came down on this thread, and rightly so. Any hope at peaceful rational discussion was torched the instant you guys came in here and started annonymously flaming people we have never heard of.

So no, I'm not going to play "more communist than thou" with you. I'not going to rise to any challenge you've sent down, because this discussion has already generated lots of flames and a moderator warning.

It's over.

If you want to talk about something else, you're welcome to. But around here we know when it's time to walk away.

-Username17
Post Reply