War against Iran

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

According to that definition for the agentship of countries you wouldn't say that the UK is attempting to assassinate Gaddafi when the MI6 tries to organize an attack that would blow up his car without seeking permission from the UK prime minister and his advisors.

From the Libyen perspective it however was an attack for which the UK was responsible.

Covert operations are always difficult to uncover, whether by MI5, CIA or anyone else. But if I say UK invaded Iraq, then I mean that the British Prime Minister and his advisers took a decision to invade Iraq. If I mean something else, I will state it explicitly.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Brutha

According to that definition for the agentship of countries you wouldn't say that the UK is attempting to assassinate Gaddafi when the MI6 tries to organize an attack that would blow up his car without seeking permission from the UK prime minister and his advisors.

From the Libyen perspective it however was an attack for which the UK was responsible.

That any government agency does anything "without permission" from a superior authority is obviously dubious. That's their cop-out.

If you understand that you have no clue how decisions are made you should stop saying that you know whether or not there a "hidden agenda".

I would say the "hidden agenda" is revealed in the consequences, not in the decisions being made. That the agenda is even hidden means that no one but certain powers are going to know about it.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you understand that you have no clue how decisions are made you should stop saying that you know whether or not there a "hidden agenda".

Wait, When did I say that?

Just because I have no clue how the decisions are made, doesn't mean I can't sense when something fishy is going on (I do have a B.S. meter). All it takes is a peek into our history to realize our government always has a "hidden agenda", it's how they (us government) does things. Say one thing, do another... over and over, again and again...

[royster]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Okay, then my make my point more directly:

There are a lot of people in the US. They have all sorts of different interests and persue all sorts of agenda's.
If you say "the US has a secret agenda" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those people in the US you are speaking.

Why is this valuable? Merging all those different interests together into a single ideal actor that's called "the US" is a simplification. That simplication prevents you from seeing how political decisions get made.
Understanding how political decisions get made is the basis for understand motivations for decisions.

As a fairly intelligent person, with much respect for you, Brutha, I find this contradicts another statement you made:

There [are] no 9/11 truth website that relentlessly cross-referrences fact.
It's something that the 9/11 truth community just doesn't do.

source:
The Bill of Rights has just been destroyed.. America is almost dead.

Allow me to slightly alter your words to stress my point:

Merging all those different [9/11 Truth] interests together into a single ideal actor is a simplification. That simplication prevents you from seeing how political decisions get made.

If you say "There [are] no 9/11 truth website that relentlessly cross-referrences fact" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those [websites] people in the [Truth movement] you are speaking.

[Brutha]

That any government agency does anything "without permission" from a superior authority is obviously dubious. That's their cop-out.

Basically you think the ex-MI5 person who had her husband imprisioned for months by the British and who blows the wisthile on the story is somehow untrustworthy, because you don't like the story?

Covert operations are always difficult to uncover, whether by MI5, CIA or anyone else.

Uncovering covert operations is a different question. According to your definition an CIA attack on Iran doesn't count as an US attack on Iran if the US president and his advisors didn't know anything about the attack.

That is a different definition than the one that international law uses to determine whether a country attacked another militarily.

Just because I have no clue how the decisions are made, doesn't mean I can't sense when something fishy is going on (I do have a B.S. meter).

Say you have a politician who's against legalizing cannabis because he fear that going that route would open him up to the allegation that doing so makes him appear soft on drugs.

There are politicians that make decisions that way.

As a fairly intelligent person, with much respect for you, Brutha, I find this contradicts another statement you made:

Show me a single 911 truth website that does relentless cross-referencing of facts.
If there no such website I think it's fair to generalize it to the whole 911 truth community.

If you say "There [are] no 9/11 truth website that relentlessly cross-referrences fact" then you should be able to specifiy about which of those [websites] people in the [Truth movement] you are speaking.

If I say there no unicorns than I don't have to point to specific unicorns to prove my point.
I also don't have to point to horses with don't happen to be unicorns. I can just observe that no unicorns exist.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Uncovering covert operations is a different question. According to your definition an CIA attack on Iran doesn't count as an US attack on Iran if the US president and his advisors didn't know anything about the attack.

I have not said that anywhere.

Even in case of covert attack, the moral responsibility still lies with that government.

I thought the main point was the definition of "the US". Are we clear that when I say the US attacked Iraq, I mean the US president and his advisers took a decision to attack Iraq?

[Brutha]

I have not said that anywhere.

Then you mean that if you say "the US made a decision to attack Iraq" you could plausibly mean something different with the term US then when you say "the US stagged a covert operation inside another country"?

In one case the definition includes a necessity that the president or his advisors are behind the attack and in the other case it doesn't?

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Then you mean that if you say "the US made a decision to attack Iraq" you could plausibly mean something different with the term US then when you say "the US stagged a covert operation inside another country"?

In one case the definition includes a necessity that the president or his advisors are behind the attack and in the other case it doesn't?

I have not said that. How did you reach this conclusion from my statement?

If I say - US invaded Iraq - that means the President and his advisers took a decision to invade Iraq.

If I say - the US stagged a covert operation inside another country - I still mean that it was a government decision to stage a covert operation as happened in case of Bin Laden.

Can you tell me in simple words what this is all about? All newspapers use the term "the US". Why are you ignoring the context?

[cacheborn]

By the way, why do you remove the names when you quote people? It gets confusing to reply in a discussion such as this one.

[royster]

My reply to Brutha:
Let me first get back to how your statement came about: it was in response to my post on another thread, which has since been locked.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/world-affairs/70713-bill-rights-has-just-been-destroyed-america-almost-dead.html#post1037302

In my post I mention nothing about 9/11 websites. I state rather clearly that researchers cross-reference. You then immediately reply about 9/11 websites. In your favor, I will concur that there are very few reliable 9/11 websites, though they do exist.

In replying to my post in the method you did, you essentially conduct the very behavior I point out, such as diversionary questions that side-track the issue.

royster - Those who research relentlessly and cross-reference facts are often discredited by means of character assassination, and when that doesn't work, a barrage of worthless questions designed to keep the topic running in circles is employed.

In throwing all 9/11 websites into a vague generality of unreliability, you associate me with that discounted group…essentially a ‘character assassination’. With Curtis2011’s comment of hypocrisy, virtually all of my valid points and comments are discounted in such a way as to be invalid.

The thread was locked before I could point this out. Without any explanation, the thread remains locked.

Brutha - Show me a single 911 truth website that does relentless cross-referencing of facts.

If there no such website I think it's fair to generalize it to the whole 911 truth community.

http://www.serendipity.li/

I consider this the oldest and most reliable website for 9/11 Truth.

And 9/11 is very MUCH on-topic for the speculation of war with Iran, because without 9/11, the “war on terror” could not have been initiated with the copious funding and public approval it has received. By the exact same means of association I illustrated above, a war is being electively created.

Brutha - it's fair to generalize

In ANY MATTER which involves life and death, it is NOT “fair” to generalize. In fact, it is in ignoring significant points that agendas are allowed to proceed unrevealed to an undiscerning public. Until the events of 9/11 are satisfactorily explored openly, and legitimate questions answered with transparency, any war or military action that followed 9/11 in the name of "the war on terror" is a crime against humanity, pure and simple.

[royster]

In the realms of hypocracy, nothing matches Bush's "Axis Of Evil" State Of The Union Speech. While instilling fear about weapons of mass destruction, he boasts about the stockpiling of America's own horrible weaponry, and promotes bloating the weaponry stockpile even more.

Axis of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States

[royster]

Originally Posted by royster

Until the events of 9/11 are satisfactorily explored openly, and legitimate questions answered with transparency, any war or military action that followed 9/11 in the name of "the war on terror" is a crime against humanity, pure and simple.

Please allow me to be very clear on this:

In revealing that the official story regarding 9/11 is rife with disception, false-flag events, deliberate military stand-downs and self-inflicted damage, the premice on which these wars are built is based on lies to perpetuate a military agenda that seeks to control world oil and resources to continue perpetuating itself. In other words, it has nothing to do with protecting Americans or their allies. Contrary, it has everything to do with controlling the earth's population, eventually, with military rule. Even as I type this, Obama signs into law an act that allows Americans to be arrested and detained indefinitely for any reason whatever. It is known that America maintains 'secret' prisons abroad and on its own soil.

[Brutha]

Until the events of 9/11 are satisfactorily explored openly, and legitimate questions answered with transparency, any war or military action that followed 9/11 in the name of "the war on terror" is a crime against humanity, pure and simple.

The argument that I made isn't about the fact whether 9/11 is staged by the government.
It's about the state of the 9/11 truth community. It's about whether or not they do relentless fact checking.

I'm able to mentally separate the questions.

The implied appeal of the argument is more: "Hey, get your house in order, get a website together that actually relentlessly fact checks all relevent claims" than it is "Your wrong about your claims".

I don't think that whether "the war on terror is a crime on humanity" is dependent on whether 9/11 was committed with support of the US government.
The statute on "crimes against humanity" doesn't really care about whether there was a valid reason to start a war but about how the war was run.

If I say - the US stagged a covert operation inside another country - I still mean that it was a government decision to stage a covert operation as happened in case of Bin Laden.

Saying "it was a government decision" and saying something happened with the support of the president and his advisors are to distinct claims.

There are government agencies that act without approval.

[royster]

Here is a succinct summary.

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

[lycan]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I wouldn't say that I feel hurt, but I am troubled by this fatalistic attitude. So long as we keep operating from a Win-Lose perspective, will we not basically fulfill our own prophecies? It is my understanding the the Iranian government wants nuclear warheads as a political deterrent towards antagonist foreign powers (the U.S, Israel).

The iranian government wants nuclear warheads for the coming of the Mahdi.

[Brutha]

Here is a succinct summary.

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

Argument by video's that are underlaid by theme music isn't the form in which public debate with relentless fact checking takes place.
It's a medium that you use if you want to stirr emotion instead of appealing to reason.
The medium is the message.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Saying "it was a government decision" and saying something happened with the support of the president and his advisors are to distinct claims.

There are government agencies that act without approval.

You seem to have a problem with my using the words "the US". I wonder how you read all the newspapers or for that matter all the discussions in the forum.

I still do not understand why the words "the US" should produce so much confusion. And after all this discussion I am still wondering what this was all about.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Argument by video's that are underlaid by theme music isn't the form in which public debate with relentless fact checking takes place.
It's a medium that you use if you want to stirr emotion instead of appealing to reason.
The medium is the message.

There is an opening orchestra piece played only while the title is shown: no different than the evening news, the beginning of television programs or any number of documentaries. There isn't any music afterwards. And the music is INTENDED to be a spoof on the "dignity" in which "credible" social engineering documentaries are presented by the mainstream.

You have criticized a universal artistic detail while ignoring 99% of the content. In your pragmatic scrutiny, you obviously did not appreciate the tongue-in-cheek satire on the official story. This video presents the "official story" in its true ridiculous light in the linear fashion in which it has been foisted off to the public.

The topic is "War With Iran", yet here we have quibbling over itty-bitty details that serve only to delay any real discussion regarding the seriousness of the issue, the validity of facts presented...and the true roots of "the war on terror", which a war against Iran will surely be classified as.

It's a medium that you use if you want to stirr emotion instead of appealing to reason.
The medium is the message

This should therefore apply to events such as the rock concert performed a few days after 9/11, in which patriotic emotion-prompting music was featured. The fact is, the video link I provide makes it a point to NOT play ANY music while mainstream "facts" are given, in the order they have been presented over the years this has unfolded.

You apparently will only accept facts under the most controlled conditions you, yourself, are setting. It is a scrutiny that throws the baby out with the wash water, and complains about the tub it was all in.

Please understand, Brutha, that I have long appreciated your pragmatic observation of topics. Should you apply this same attention to detail in other areas of the topic, you would find much information previously overlooked...or swept under the carpet.

Peace.

[royster]

IRAN

[Brutha]

This should therefore apply to events such as the rock concert performed a few days after 9/11, in which patriotic emotion-prompting music was featured.

Did you see me writing anywhere that I approve of those events?

There is an opening orchestra piece played only while the title is shown: no different than the evening news

Evening news is your standard for good debate of political topics?

I'm fairly constistent in telling people on this forum that they should stop watch mainstream TV to stop being programmed.

I'm not treating you any different than I'm treating the evening news.

I'm not in favor of watching mainstream news. For me the only question is the extend to which I want to be involved in making mainstream news.
I however don't go there because I like the style of mainstream news but because it's a way to reach a significant audience.

I don't have any problem with people who oppose the Iran war going on the evening news to tell their story. You have to make some sacrifices to tell your message to a large audience.
If you however discuss on my forum, please bring text based arguments.

You have criticized a universal artistic detail while ignoring 99% of the content. In your pragmatic scrutiny, you obviously did not appreciate the tongue-in-cheek satire on the official story.

I didn't watch the whole video and therefore didn't see most of the content.

This video presents the "official story" in its true ridiculous light in the linear fashion in which it has been foisted off to the public.

Showing that the official story is ridiculous doesn't bring you that far.

You could convince a significant part of the population to become cynic. Maybe you even get the current regime to collapse.

The power will fall to some charasmatic leader that rises up.

To quote a recent article in FPIF: "There are many examples where those who make the revolutions do not come to power (whether France in 1789, Russia 1917, Eastern Europe 1989 or now the Arab World 2011). It appears to be more of a rule than an exception."

You actually need to live to higher standards to build an alternative. Replacing evening news with youtube videos is no progress.

The topic is "War With Iran", yet here we have quibbling over itty-bitty details that serve only to delay any real discussion regarding the seriousness of the issue, the validity of facts presented...and the true roots of "the war on terror", which a war against Iran will surely be classified as.

A debate about who the actors in a conflict are is very relevant.
If you don't understand the actor most of your tactical political manuvers will probably fail.

In the case of the possible war against Iran it's important to understand that there are a bunch of different actors in the US. Some of them would like a war against Iran while other don't. Different actors might even want the war for different reasons.

[royster]

I accept what you're saying, Brutha, and find several very valuable points to your last post. I also agree with the approach you recommend, though having tried that for years, the "cynical" path of satire might just be the perspective that causes some to take note.

Reading between your lines I see a sharp wisdom in you. Thank you for taking the time to explain your method, your view, and your suggestions.

[JDuff]

I haven't read any of the above, but let's face it, 2012 is going to be a ridiculously historic year. One that may lead to a ridiculous war. Personally, I don't buy the "Iran is owned by a crazy bunch of nuke-riding mullahs" rhetoric that is drummed up in support of expending the arms bought by America and Israel.

But what else will they spend it on? If not Iran, there must be other wars around the corner....

At the end of the day, poor peoples of the earth, poor suffering peoples....if only half a trillion a year was spent in helping people and not the interests of the US...

This is a ridiculously simplified view - but the fundamentals hold....