Alex Jones Exposes the Osama bin Laden Hoax[views:23679][posts:170]_____________________________________ [May 5,2011 4:39pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] ITT: Pam and Aril and I need to go out for beers. This would be the conversation to end all conversations. Headbanging man: COuld you concisely tell me where Pieczenik's actual case/evidence is? I admit, I just skimmed, but all I saw was a lot of "If anyone knows, this guy knows" followed by a "I took a class, and some general said 911 was a false flag attack" which, last I looked, is not very compelling evidence (unless you enjoy building a case on hearsay) The problem is, once upon a time in history political leaders would mislead, control, and lie to it's people regarding foreign policy, wars, and many other things. So we created the media. But it became far, far too easy for government and big business to control and manipulate the media. So we brought the media TO the PEOPLE. Gave them cells, cameras, blogs, internet, and ways of communicating news, information, etc... faster and further than ANY government or business can control. This was GOOD for the people who, historically, have been lied to and misled by their governments. There's a catch, though, and it's a DOOZY: Throughout history, there have also been a lot of RETARDS, WHACKJOBS, NUTCASES, and misinformed IDIOTS with a flair for the fictional and dramatic. And historically we've protected the people from these idiots by keeping them out of the media. You'd often see these people depicted in films as some tard in a foil hat with a sandwichboad sign on the side of the road. (No, it's not Rorschach). And when we put the media in the people's hands, we also but the media in THOSE people's hands as well. You can't trust everything, but you can't blindly follow or believe anything either. MANY times on this site, I've gotten into arguments with people or something where I'll try to take on a different perspective, and view things from a side no-one else is bothering to. I've learned that every single thing we read, even the cold hard facts, can be delivered, twisted, argues, or misconstrued in a huge variety of ways. Especially nowadays, when even the "mainstream" media outlets are suddenly filled with an abundance of freelance bloggers and amateurs, while editing and fact checking (or even fucking SPELL checking) seem to be at an all time low. There's no one at the gate anymore, which means you can't trust ANYONE anymore. But that doesn't mean everything is a LIE. Some things are true, and just being spun in a way that benefits the most. And that's the stuff you REALLY gotta look out for. |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 4:44pm - pam ""] ArrowHeadNLI said: I admit, I just skimmed, but all I saw was a lot of "If anyone knows, this guy knows" followed by a "I took a class, and some general said 911 was a false flag attack" which, last I looked, is not very compelling evidence (unless you enjoy building a case on hearsay) You can't trust everything, but you can't blindly follow or believe anything either. Especially nowadays, when even the "mainstream" media outlets are suddenly filled with an abundance of freelance bloggers and amateurs, while editing and fact checking (or even fucking SPELL checking) seem to be at an all time low. There's no one at the gate anymore, which means you can't trust ANYONE anymore. But that doesn't mean everything is a LIE. Some things are true, and just being spun in a way that benefits the most. And that's the stuff you REALLY gotta look out for. This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. And I try not to talk about things that piss me off while I'm merrymaking but I'm always happy to have a beer with Aril. |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 4:50pm - Headbanging_Man ""] It's your call, I don't think those etiquette rules hold so steady when it comes to voluntary participation in online discussions. If it's boring, I think it's generally considered fair game to leave it be... If you insist on responding (I'll be here waiting for more info debunking the propaganda "death" of OBL)... To take a short example, obviously you WERE referring to me when you claimed that because you support gay rights and reproductive freedom, people put assumptions in your mouth and accuse you of not knowing anything, and (lord forbid!) put the word "progressive" in quotes. I'd say the assumptions I listed were quite evident in your typing, but I would be quite curious to know where gay rights, abortion, or your general state of knowledge came up previously in this thread... Cause I'm not seeing it anywhere. And I'd likewise be curious what relevance to any of this is the fact that I don't consider Barack O-bomb-er to be "progressive" enough to shed the quotation marks. If you'd like to conjure up things that weren't even mentioned in this thread and take direct personal offense at them, I suppose that is your prerogative, it just won't go very far towards proving your central point: "You all worship the cumstains on Alex Jones' cumstains, you stupid little cumstains, leave my President alone!". |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 4:55pm - pam ""] tl;dr |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 4:57pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] "You all worship the cumstains on Alex Jones' cumstains, you stupid little cumstains, leave my President alone!". That's not Pam's point. There's only one person here that even gets into the AJ type shit, and that's Aril. And I'm pretty sure 90% of the time he's actually laughing WITH us. I think her actual point is that you're a tool. I could be wrong, though. |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 4:58pm - pam ""] No that's pretty much it. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:01pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] pam said:tl;dr what does this mean? i keep seeing it randomly. |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:08pm - pam ""] too long, didn't read. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:09pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] oh haha. good to know. |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:16pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] FuckIsMySignature said: pam said:tl;dr what does this mean? i keep seeing it randomly. It means "talk later, drunk rightnow" |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:20pm - pam ""] Cum reference count in this thread me: 2 Headbanging Man: 8 |
| ___________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:23pm - arilliusbm ""] BEER TONITE |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:25pm - pam ""] yessssss |
| ___________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:27pm - arilliusbm ""] PS: Alex Jones is a very smart man.. he memorizes EVERY little fact and detail. I don't like how he jumps the gun and don't believe half of his theories. A number of them are true, but he overexaggerates so many things. The biggest LOL I get is how the NWO is luciferion. Get that shut outta here guy. |
| ___________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:28pm - arilliusbm ""] Shut = Shit. Driving to Worcester and texting while itchingpoison ivy |
| ___________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:31pm - arilliusbm ""] oh and Alex Jones is Illuminati |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:32pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] arilliusbm said:PS: Alex Jones is a very smart man.. he memorizes EVERY little fact and detail. Easy to do with google and a teleprompter. But like I said, his actual research leaves a bit to be desired. Gimme an hour on google, and a day to make a video, and I'll explain to you how the apocalypse is real, and the six flags old guy is actually the antichrist with cotton candy being the mark of the beast. Anyone can sit around and make connections. That's NOT journalism. It's theorizing. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:34pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] arilliusbm said:Shut = Shit. Driving to Worcester and texting while itchingpoison ivy only driving while shaving pubes is real |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:34pm - pam ""] arilliusbm said:Shut = Shit. Driving to Worcester and texting while itchingpoison ivy only endangering the lives of others to post on rttp is real. |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:35pm - pam ""] ahahahaaa |
| ___________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:37pm - arilliusbm ""] fuck other people |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 5:38pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] bennyhillifier |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 5:39pm - pam ""] no one fucks you like you fuck yourself ...shit, does that count as a semen reference? |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:09pm - Headbanging_Man ""] ArrowHeadNLI said: - I don't think anyone like Steve Pieczenik is offering incontrovertible proof of everything. I think he offers some very compelling information that IS undoubtedly hearsay, but we're talking about journalism, not a court case. The use of unnamed sources in modern journalism has been completely perverted, but the kind that Pieczenik (granting him status as a reporter) is discussing is what unnamed sourcing was invented for: to allow information to be revealed without subjecting the whistleblowers to the possible retaliation of their employers/superiors. I don't have any particular faith in him as a source over any other, however, the insider information he alleges dovetails neatly with a lot of the other slim bits of info out there, in re: Osama's long-past death. I find Benazir Bhutto far more compelling than anyone in the current White House, and the more I think about it, unless Musharraf mispoke, I would say his statement on the matter was a way of "announcing" OBL's death without actually crossing his US paymasters. Again, nothing incontrovertible, but if the WH/Pentagon cannot clarify these contradictions, they remain a point to question. Merely saying "Shut up, we got him" is not sufficient to "debunk" serious questions. I don't KNOW that Bin Laden has been dead for 9 years, though I do believe it strongly enough to critically doubt the current WH/Pentagon story. Being called a stupid cunt who has irrational faith in Alex Jones (I don't), or labeled a "deather" (as the mainstream media is attempting now to do) isn't really sufficient to change my mind. - I agree and disagree about the media and the use of gatekeepers. It's true that the internet in general has offered self-publishing and networking opportunities for the completely inept, insane, and intellectually worthless. That said, I'm not sure I agree that the same really has been applied to the mainstream media; on the one hand, yes, CNN has pathetically devolved to the point of reading viewer Tweets on the air... On the other hand, the major TV/radio/print news IS now in 5 sets of corporate hands, and even with technological expansion, editorial control is the most crucial gate, and it still shuts quite easily on controversial issues. The internet gives someone like Alex Jones a vastly expanded audience from what he would have had 20 years ago, but in some ways I feel the mainstream dialogue is more restrictive than ever. I could get into a few examples, it's quite a massive subject though; maybe the JFK assassination would still serve as a legitimate example though. I find it an increasingly useful event in reference to the way the executive branch and its corporate partners work together covertly. Despite the fact that the general public had rejected the lone-assassin theory entirely by the end of the 1970's, when the subject comes up in current stories, you will still see, in ANY mainstream source, discussion of "assassin Lee Harvey Oswald", for example. These stories even stick to the Warren Commission scenario (3 shots, no conspiracy), even though this fiction was refuted in 1979 by an official congressional body (House Select Committee On Assassinations). Likewise, when Dr. Malcolm Perry died 2 years ago, his obituary in many publications tried to sanitize his testimony to the Warren Commission, focusing on an out-of-context quote about JFK's neck wound to sanitize his testimony away from "conspiracy theory". At least the NYT was good enough to correct itself (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/us/08perry.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper) though they left in the bit about how he kept quiet after the WC report because he "regretted contributing, however inadvertently, to the various conspiracy theories"; strangely they don't mention the possibility that he might have been scared for his life, in light of the treatment of other witnesses against the WC. These are small examples, but I would say they're part of a very large pattern in which editorial control ensures that the "official" story prevails, regardless of how much evidence there may be to the contrary. I won't even get into actual CIA presence in the media, but the fact that the Agency came under some (very limited) congressional scrutiny about this in the 1970's doesn't preclude these type of psy-ops continuing to this day. - There ARE RETARDS, WHACKJOBS, NUTCASES, and IDIOTS out there, and some of them have their own blogs or news sites. However, it's also useful to remember that the powers that be frequently use such characterizations to discredit legitimate critics, as well as actual flakes. I'd rather deal with the issues on their merits, and question my sources, but not rule them out without good reason. Everyone from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul (and far beyond on both sides of the political spectrum) has been labeled a whackjob or "conspiracy theorist" by someone (or more frequently, someones) merely wishing to discredit their valid political criticisms. The only real way to deal with this, in my eyes, is to deal with every source and every issue on its own merits. It's far too easy and lazy to simply take other people's words as to who are the RWNIs... - In addition to morons and crazies, there are liars. Not everything in the news media is a lie, however my limited studying of the past 60-70 years or US history has shown me that ALMOST everything related to US foreign policy/national security/military/intelligence matters IS a lie. Not just spun and manipulated, but a lie. There are too many events to even begin to capture them all, but suffice it to say, as sources go, I have a very strong opinion about the military, and the CIA-Wall St. complex (and their various front men in the Oval Office). The executive branch has EARNED my incredulity, it's not merely a matter of faith on my part. Earlier I mentioned Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch; those are just 2 of a handful of propaganda psy-ops the Pentagon has pulled on the American (and global) public in the past decade; looking back to Bosnia, Gulf War I, Iran-Contra, death squads in Guatamala, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Gulf Of Tonkin, Pearly Harbor... We're just talking about a legacy of utter dishonesty in the name of military empire. The burden of proof is simply not on the skeptic when it comes to official Pentagon or CIA pronouncements. - And finally, spin and manipulation of actual events is dangerous, but I do think the "Big Lie" is much more destructive than near lies; even if he was talking about the Jews, Hitler of course used this tactic himself (under the brilliant guidance of Goebbels): All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. At least we learn on a social level to deal with spin and manipulation; unfortunately our culture and educational system do not push people to question the great "factual" premises of our world, thus the "impudence to distort the truth so infamously" remains a valuable tactic for authoritarians. |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:15pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Big fucking tap dance, weaving a.d.d. useless bullshit. Back to the matter at hand, I repeat my original question: "COuld you concisely tell me where Pieczenik's actual case/evidence is?" Look up 'concisely' if you need to. I don't give two shit about your view on JFK or Fraggle Rock. Let's get back to your whole belief that Osama's death is a hoax. |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:22pm - Headbanging_Man ""] Great reading comprehension... "I don't think anyone like Steve Pieczenik is offering incontrovertible proof of everything." "I don't KNOW that Bin Laden has been dead for 9 years, though I do believe it strongly enough to critically doubt the current WH/Pentagon story. Being called a stupid cunt who has irrational faith in Alex Jones (I don't), or labeled a "deather" (as the mainstream media is attempting now to do) isn't really sufficient to change my mind. " You asked 1 question, but followed it up with a rather sappy lecture about how sometimes it's better just to take the government at its word. If you wanted a simple response, you could have avoided opening up a different can of worms entirely. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:23pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] tl;dr |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:25pm - Headbanging_Man ""] FuckIsMySignature said:tl;dr That seems to be the general consensus from people who are sick of having people point out the rat shit in their spoon-fed propaganda, and just want to swallow already. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:26pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] just put some sugar on that rat shit. its all good. |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:26pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Headbanging_Man said:Great reading comprehension... You asked 1 question, but followed it up with a rather sappy lecture about how sometimes it's better just to take the government at its word. . Idiot, you really got that from what I said? The comprehension problem is NOT mine. My sappy lecture was that easy access to media has given forum to idiots like AJ. I never, in ANY way, implied you should take the government at it's word. In fact, I said quite the opposite of that. You FAILED. Again. WHAT is his evidence. I asked a simple question. You've danced around it, over and over, but so far I've seen nothing beyond "a general said it during a training session". That's pretty non-damning stuff right there. Shitty testimony, shitty witness, shitty journalism. THIS is why it's not on the front page of major news outlets, NOT due to control by the NWO. So AGAIN: What is his evidence? |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:27pm - Headbanging_Man ""] As I said, he's offering hearsay evidence that's potentially controvertible. I didn't say he had a great case. |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:28pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Headbanging_Man said: FuckIsMySignature said:tl;dr That seems to be the general consensus from people who are sick of having people point out the rat shit in their spoon-fed propaganda, and just want to swallow already. Why do conspiracy nuts always babble in run on sentences and excessive adjectives? |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:29pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Headbanging_Man said:As I said, he's offering hearsay evidence that's potentially controvertible. I didn't say he had a great case. But it was your own argument. You bring up evidence to support your own argument, then say it's hearsay and controvertible? Alex J got NUTHIN on you, man. |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:29pm - Headbanging_Man ""] As to what I got from your "lecture", a bunch of condescending shit; you did say to question everything, but for some reason seem not to want to apply that to this week's propaganda blitz. What is so compelling about Obama's hearsay evidence that it overrides that of 2 Pakistani heads of state? |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:32pm - Headbanging_Man ""] I didn't bring it up as evidence or say I had an argument. I don't believe Osama died a few days ago. However that's not what I was arguing, I merely offered that article as a piece of interest, and I find it at least worth consideration. I never said it was proof of anything. The only thing I'm really arguing in this thread is that lumping "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" into a mass and conjuring up political profiles for them is an anti-intellectual exercise in shutting off discussion of issues on their merits. |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:34pm - Headbanging_Man ""] Especially in light of the fact that conspiracy is a fact of our political and social life... The entire idea of organized crime is predicated on the fact that some people earn their daily living through participation in criminal conspiracy |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:35pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Headbanging_Man said:As to what I got from your "lecture", a bunch of condescending shit; you did say to question everything, but for some reason seem not to want to apply that to this week's propaganda blitz. What is so compelling about Obama's hearsay evidence that it overrides that of 2 Pakistani heads of state? My opinion was condescending? And said to trust government? Why would I argue about you any further, when you can't fucking read. Let me explain condescending: You're a fucking dipshit. THAT is condescending. As for the rest, I made a statement to Pam and Jim about beer. bunch of space. Asked you a question. Bunch of space. Made my own separate commentary unrelated to you about my thought on the Alex J thing. Yet twice now you've felt that 1) it was directed at you and 2) have completely misread and reinterpreted every word I've said. |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:37pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] lol you guys should have a pitfight to resolve this. |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:41pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] FuckIsMySignature said:lol you guys should have a pitfight to resolve this. I wouldn't waste my time. If you can't use your brain to make a point, it's useless. |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 6:44pm - Headbanging_Man ""] I see the spacing, so I see now it wasn't directed at me... Does that preclude me from responding? A bunch of meaningless bromides about why the media exists and the fact that technology has opened the door to more opinions does come across as condescending to anyone past the 8th grade ("Once upon a time in history", come on!), and it seems directed, if anything at saying that sometimes the government lies, but sometimes it should be trusted. The implication was that it's OK to ask questions, but not WHACKJOB questions, with an underlying assumption that not swallowing the OBL death narrative equated to WHACKJOB questions. Yet if these questions are so whackjob, why not address them individually on their merits and prove it to be so? |
| ____________________________ [May 5,2011 7:12pm - pam ""] FuckIsMySignature said:tl;dr Excellent usage! A+ |
| __________________________________________ [May 5,2011 7:23pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] yay!! |
| _________________________________ [May 5,2011 8:36pm - brian_dc ""] Headbanging_Man said: FuckIsMySignature said:tl;dr That seems to be the general consensus from people who are sick of having people point out the rat shit in their spoon-fed propaganda, and just want to swallow already. tl;dr |
| ________________________________ [May 5,2011 8:38pm - Doomkid ""] brian_dc said: Headbanging_Man said: FuckIsMySignature said:tl;dr That seems to be the general consensus from people who are sick of having people point out the rat shit in their spoon-fed propaganda, and just want to swallow already. tl;dr tl;dr |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 8:52pm - Headbanging_Man ""] I'm still waiting to find out how we're supposed to know if a particular question is whackjob or not. I mean, obviously Arrowhead's superior system of questioning the government, EXCEPT when it's telling the truth is the way to go, but I can't seem to shake this habit of suspecting ALL sources at ALL times. What ever can I do? I'm also curious what I can do to curb my terrible run-on sentence habits... Clearly 2 adjectives at a time is far too many for any reasonable person to read, but how many words over the limit were my 31??? |
| _____________________________________ [May 5,2011 9:36pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] Headbanging_Man said:I'm still waiting to find out how we're supposed to know if a particular question is whackjob or not. You really just don't get what I've said. or tl;dr |
| ________________________________________ [May 5,2011 9:51pm - Headbanging_Man ""] questioning the government, EXCEPT when it's telling the truth is the way to go I know exactly what you said, and this was the crux of it, the implication being that in THIS INSTANCE the government is telling the truth, pre-empting the need for questions. How one is even supposed to put a value on truth WITHOUT FIRST asking questions is what you've failed to explain. |
| _________________________________________ [May 5,2011 10:07pm - Headbanging_Man ""] Seriously, if you're even remotely capable of intelligent discussion, surely you can give me 2 or 3 reasons why I, or anyone, should rely on the government's account of OBL's death. I've read your vague rambling pontifications about how the mass media and technology has watered down credibility, now why don't you actually address the subject of this thread? If you'd rather just take the official answer with a bit of faith, of course that's your prerogative, but you haven't even bothered to discuss the actual topic of this thread to that degree. I don't doubt you'd just rather flame me than convince me of anything, but you are depriving yourself of an opportunity to act/come across like an adult by refusing to even address the inconsistencies in the government's story. |
| ______________________________________ [May 5,2011 10:55pm - ArrowHeadNLI ""] You know I've made more than one post, right? I think I've pretty clearly stated my opinion. And yes, 11 historic documentations at people GUESSING Osama was dead, combined with a guy with a name and position I've never heard of who "oughta know" saying he heard it from a general addressing his class who said 911 was a false flag attack, does not make me suspicious. I believe in Occam's razor. It took 10 years to find him because we were looking in the wrong country. We went in and took him out, and disposed of the remains. Looking at it logically, it makes sense. Were we justified in shooting? Did he really resist? I don't know. I know if they're hiding something with the body, it has more to do with these two questions than any theories you may have put forth. |
| __________________________________ [May 5,2011 10:57pm - brian_dc ""] I'm more interested in the fact that I resolved a bigger mystery: Q: Who ate all the pies? A: Who ate all the pies? Who ate all the pies? You fat bastard You fat bastard You ate all the pies. |