Neshi

just find it funny that everybody is picking on Judas, putting words in his mouth, just like you are doing to me.
I didn't say that you try to fix the world and are using this forum to accomplish that. try to re-read what I wrote, without prejudice.

__________________
If one does not attach himself to people and desire, never shall his heart be broken. But then, does he ever truly live?

Life is just too damn short for if's and maybe's

blibbax

Neshi, I've nothing against you - quite the contrary - and as such I'm not reading your posts with any negative prejudice. But in this thread we've been discussing a few problems with the world - problems like the media, like government secrecy, like terrorism - so what do you expect me to make of it when you tell me that my:

and that it:

?

Furthermore, what words did I put in Judas's mouth? Quote me where I've implied his thinking something, and I'll quote him where he's implied that he thinks it.

Also, nobody picks on you Neshi. Some people do "pick on" Judas, because his posts in this section of the forum are easy to perceive as being of questionable quality. However, I don't think that I'm guilty of this. I only respond to what's posted, and I'd respond in the same way whoever posted it.

__________________

Tyrsonswood

*raises hand*

__________________

blibbax

You're still reading this thread Tyr? Kudos :P

__________________

Judas

all it takes is 1 lie to justify questionging everything all the time reguardless of how "sure" they may be actually telling the truth.

Now most of everything i post here is not 100% what i beleive.... but i will argue any lopsided situation provided that i see that is seems like it already has a scewed view form the majority, specially if there is supporting evidence.

Do i personally beleive that everything and anything i've stated of the years in relation to "conspiracy" related stuff is 100% accurate.... of course not... do i beleive anything really about any of it? not entirely

But those same questions apply to the same sources.. do i personally beleive anything and everything about their accuracy or that they are true at all? Absalutely not.

Considering the numerous people i do know, from various walks of life from/in various levels of government, politically, business, unions, communities, religions, etc and so forth.... i can better understand all sides of an arguement, discussion, points of view and get a better understanding of the situations at hand.

If you are told one thing, then you find supporting evidence..... but you just don't find that supporting evidence.. you also find the counter of it, evidence to debunk or denounce it. Basically follow the scientific model... it's quite easy.

So we establish a model, where depending on how often information plays out to be true and accurate, gives weighted value, and if not accurate, loses value. So if big hard hitting decisions are made, in lets say for example as it was stated earlier, the iraq war, one that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths, which we were told repeatedly be political and official sources including blanketing the media over and over again leading up to the result of going there, it was confirmed, that what we had been told was indeed a complete lie. This is fairly significant, specially with the numerous "alternative" sources stating the opposite of what was officially being claimed. Alternative sources winning that round, officials losing massively.

This can be traced back through the years as repeating over and over again.

But how do people get convinced that they are generally more reliable and should be trusted, perhaps not 100% but most of the time? Well it's like any other game.. and it is the game.... play your cards well, bluff and stick with your poker face the best you can when you need to.

This is played at every level, with no stakes or extremely high stakes... be it life or death included.

If you want trust, you be honest about simple things or numerous things.... keep the deception going and the flood gates open for the most part on "bleh" stuff occuring everyday... repeated accuracies with little to evidence to counter it... and when it comes to the point where something huge applies and you wish to decieve the people, well you've just completed over the course of a few years or months even to build trust and support, granting the ability to do something horrible in the eyes of most of the populants...

Well at least to cause a thinking dilema among the people.. keeping them occupied with their own issues about what may be going on... allowing the group to continue to do whatever they want... specially if you can keep the red tape up all over the place for the few good people that are in positions to try and prevent such horrible things from occuring.

It happens, it can happen... it does happen.. it has repeatedly happened.

Evidence and documents and whistle blowers all around have been presenting it... but with lack of official air time on any form of broadcasts makes it difficult for anyone to get their counter balance they need to form an intelligent and accurate point of view that includes a much fuller picture then the tiny scrap they were force fed.


So if we take the time to bullet point the facts of what we have available using all forms of evidence and documented statements we can better grasp the underlying way things played out and whom is likely to be telling most accurate events and whom isn't.


Now re-reading most of the previous statements in this thread not to mention some of the others.. is the claim that there is no way to keep this underwraps, no way for anyone to pull it off, no way they would do it... This is to put bluntly, a total disreguard for possibility and must be ignored for the time being, because anything is possible reguardless of how likely impossible it may be. Just because there is disbeleif, doesn't make it a valid statement at all nor does it automatically make something false. If it were tried in a scientific method, it must be on the table for discussion and it must be considered to the fullest extent.

Another arguement that is mentioned is that there wasn't anyone that denied anything, which i find odd because there are plenty of whistle blowers around. But then it comes back that they "aren't officials and are likely just nutjobs and crazies per usual" which, granted every thing has it's fair share. Still doesn't make it valid to disreguard everyone even if there are a few people that do turn up as phonies. As i stated, just like i don't 100% disreguard anything that is indeed stated in the news about anything, because it helps them do what their agenda is concerned with when they mix truths with the lies, makes it hard to know when to beleive or figure that they might actually be saying something accurate, see it's the simple things like coin toss, you keep people wondering and unsure, and they get to do whatever they want in the meantime, specially where laws have been passed where there is no accountability or responcibility.

Now, as i had also stated previously, as i don't have time to start taking the time to do the bullet point thing.. but i'd love to right now...

It is confirmed and known that OBL had direct contact with the CIA, that he was trained by the CIA, he was given the necessary gear to his and the CIA's pick of the few that would come along with him for training. The official database created was dubbed Al-Qaeda. This name was the running name for the group and remained so under the CIA's own discretion.

When the task that OBL and his group was completed, which was basically to fight off russian occupation and numerous other attacks, unofficial sources and partial official sources claim that OBL went rogue and a number of the al-qaeda members followed. While OBL is claimed to have stated that they did not continue to go by the name, it was stated by a ex-CIA that blew the whistle that it was in the best interest of the CIA to continue using the name when it saw fit, and being that they had all the evidence and documents they needed for when and specifically what documents needed public to see, or the president for that matter, they could so they had a smoking gun at the ready at any time they wanted if they wanted anyone to blame.

Things get a little more interesting and still remains beleiveable although some would state "insane" that the CIA would use al-qaeda name in this way.... but they've done this before.

So now you have the "enemy" available to use even if no one is actually there... just basically a "show" to put on as you need or wish. So in this case, you have OBL killed supposedly, an a few days later you have Al-Qaeda "confirming" he's dead. So essentially we have confirmation from the same source.... how does that work?

Possible? Yes
Confirmed? Partially
Deniable? No entirely
Does this split up the people in being able to really figure out what's going on at all? Of course...

Devide and conquer.

You can't have the power to strip the rights and freedoms of the governed under the guise of a republic of the people, or a free people, without putting on a show to keep them confused and unsure or even argueing amongst themselves.

Everything is tied together, even if it's directly or through a rat nest of strings. I could start quoting things from numerous head huncho's with controlling interests that either are or appear directly related to some of the things going on and quite frankly many of the things said recently don't even appear that they want to even try and hide some of the incriminating or damaging statements they've made or done.

But whatever.

There are people out there today that don't think free mason excist just because they are in disbeleif... just like there are fewer and fewer people today that now know through scientific methods that 2 giagantic steel structures built in the way they were, could not possibly defy physics, and somehow in the same instant, not change any of the plans in the construction of new buildings using this the claim that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings.

There is conspiracy theories, but there are countless conspiracy facts. Focusing on theories is one thing, but denying the facts is a whole other world of insanity.

__________________

blibbax

Without meaning to condescend, that was a fairly well written, reasonable and seemingly honest post Judas, so thanks (though at nearly 1600 words I have gotten away with shorter essays).

If you presented yourself as well more often people might take your arguments a little more seriously. I agree that a devil's advocate can be an important thing to have, but it works better in my opinion if you make it clear that that's what you're doing, so that you don't loose credibility in the process.

I don't want to get into get into a discussion about 11th Sept 2001, and your assertions in that area aren't particularly outrageous, so I won't respond to them. I also don't want to get into a discussion about your or my real life credentials either, so I won't challenge your assertion that you have a better understanding of "the situations at hand", or ask you who you think you have a better understanding than.

__________________

Judas

i don't beleive i have a better understanding than anyone in particular... i just know provided with a well laid out set of statements, documents and even hersay from surrounding people.. that it's not hard to conceive any of it.

It scales..... and while scaling sounds like it should be harder, it isn't necessarily.. sometimes it gets easier.

You can and there have been conspiracies within families, small families... are they all found out? no
are some though? yes

Any parent that beleives every word stated by their offspring even when damning evidence and even caught red handed in something foul is music to their ears and they couldn't do anything wrong is well.. by honest and reasonable people would clearly know how idiotic that is. Right? I've seen it..

I also know that others and including myself have at given periods of time lost credibility with my parents or siblings or even friends, intentional or not... call em white lies or cold ones. Everyone caculates in some manner, some harshes then others.

Depending on the frequency and how terrible they have been always determines future outcomes by a certain factor.

So if you only tell a few little lies occasionally or rarely, people will beleive you more often then someone that tends to lie constantly for no apparent reason. But it only takes a few very damning lies that are found out to really put someone in the gutter or to be thought of as trash.

With as much confusion that occurs with the countless people involved in anything, how little each department knows about anything... how little can be actually brought to light due to any number of claimed reasons... It's not hard to conceive that even when mis-information isn't even intended to occur, it does anyways.

One cannot put out an eletrical/chemical fire with meerly just water, if a lie starts somewhere, it tends to take off like said fire.

Another way of putting it is snowballing.

There are tons of metaphors that explain the situation that occurs and the outcome of total confusion and oventually the callapse of reasonable conversation or real debate.

I would love to see OBL go to court, without any political influence, Preferably in a place where there is zero possibility of people getting paid off or influence. Where all evidence is weighed, suspects and defendence take their seat and we actually have something realistic to chew on. Short of that, assissination of any sort is still murder, even if he "may have been" the "bad guy", Due process is required, and when broken for any given reason, bad things tend to follow.

I personally don't think OBL is entirely responcible... I'd go as far as to sumize that OBL may have been as true to his words in many things, (excluding the both mistranslated or really questionable videos which may or may not include him in there in the first place..)

Lets lay out another senario from a different point of view.

OBL, young at the time, knows of impending threat from russia... United states CIA offer help, takes it, receives training, receives armormants, go back, fights off the russians succeeds to a certain extent and then the follow potentially occurs.

OBL is requested for other duties by the CIA (because they offered him help against the russians..... so we can play the "payback card").... in which OBL figures isn't his place and is wrong, decides to go rogue... sticks to his initial oath or honor or whatever it may be to defend his own country from not only the russians but anyone else that threatens it.

Nothing occurs for quite some time, until foreigners show up that are a threat, defending it he is then painted as a bad guy. Having not entirely done anything that any other patriotic person would do to defend their own country, such as a united states citizen, he is still labeled the bad guy because he did end up killing someone, apparently the wrong guys to kill.

Either way he remains to be one of the few that defends his position at any cost, Without diving to deeply into other examples of where other countries political representatives have been bought and paid for.... OBL doesn't get bought and paid for, remains as a opposition for whomever has plans to "invade" or do anything that he deems bad.

Now we can debate about whom has the right to do one or other thing, even though we may not agree on what is right at all, OBL would undeniably be in the right to continue to have his right to defend his country from any threat he may perceive to be even if it is actually well intentioned.

Anyone outside of the country reguardless of how much we don't agree with what is being done within it, is a totally different matter, We have the right to try to do something about it, however we do not have the right to simply walk in and make changes as we see fit. Nor should we be shocked if we are shot and killed for it.

I may play devils advocate more often then others may care, even if it isn't clear that i may be. But i tend to really take good care in carefully considering all the of the potential points of view, the facts of the matter, the conflicting information pertaining to it all.

There is nothing i'm really certain of... People ask me how i am at any given time of the day any day of the week, my answer is fairly consistant... "not sure" because even i am not certain of myself on the spot. I cannot judge others to the full extent due to my overal nature of remaining fairly neutral to most everything. It takes a lot of digging to really push me to the 51%/49% marker.... otherwise i'm usually always riding the 50/50 % in most things.

While some of my posts may appear to be fueled with rage or emotion.... honestly i'm not... i may "push" a little hard on occasion, and i know quite often i don't make much sense because of countless other things going on at any given time (i have been interupted several times during). But i try to be as detailed in my explanation as possible, i find i'd rather have to much information then not enough.

__________________

Dude111

If we are honest with each other,we can say WE DONT REALLY KNOW IF HE IS DEAD OR ALIVE!!

Ya cant trust MSM in this country worth a dime..... MANY SAID HE DIED YEARS AGO......


Who knows for sure!

Judas

so long as most everyone agrees that the possibility of him either being dead prior or not dead yet.... and that those 2 possibilities may indeed have a higher probability then the "official" story.... that'd be fine.

I just have a huge distaste for anyone that hears something on the news and parrots like a fact. Specially considering this case... where all we have is a total lack of facts....

__________________