Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
editor said:
can i go. i know the answer
editor
hiraethified
What a fucking moron.fela fan said:
I know these facts through a process called studying. It involves learning, reading, going to museums and researching a subject through the work of qualified experts and historians.
I know for you, 'research' means typing something into google and then believing anything you find on some book-shunting halfwit's site, but if you got your head out of your conspirarse you'd know that 'time machines' aren't necessary to learn about the past.
editor
hiraethified
Yes! They all lived happily together and told happy stories over their happy camp fire and no nasty strangers ever came along and raped and pillaged and killed them and there were no nasty folk stories about demons and there was law and order everywhere, there was never any persecution, there was no witch craft or unfair trials and everyone lived clapping their hands with joy and eating all the lovely food in their palatial warm and cosy houses!fela fan said:
Read a book on history for fucks sake. You're living a life of unheard-of riches and wallowing in absolute luxury and safety compared to your average 15th century serf!
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
your average 15th C serf would have been far easier to hoodwink than your average drowning-in-media citizen.
let's take for an example, the doctrine of the church at the time.
priests would have been one of the ways that information was passed to your average serf. transport, control and "advertising" mechanisms were not so distributing the printed word wasn't easy, then there's the small matter of literacy. your average serf wouldn't have been able to read, relying instead on the Clergy to read aloud and singing to the Lord (in Latin). Most books were enormous amd needed a lecturn to support them. (4). Gesta Romanorum (Deeds of the Romans) was the most popular book of that time, and was the source, directly or indirectly, of much later literature, including that of Chaucer, John Gower, Thomas Hoccleve, Shakespeare, and many others.(o). In the early 15th Century, Kings ordered their sheriff's to read a roll of proclaimations, such as "cause to be proclaimed that everyone in the shire, on festival days when he has holiday, shall learn and exercise himself in the art of archery, and use for his games bows and arrows, or crossbolts or bolts, forbidding all and single, on our orders, to meddle or toy in any way with these games of throwing stones, wood, or iron, playing handball, football, 'stickball,' or hockey, or cock-fighting, or any other games of this kind, which are worthless, under pain of imprisonment." (1)
and so on. western europe had only just caught up with 11th century islamic mathematics. some people thought the earth was flat. it wasn't until 1492 that "in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two", when it all changed forever when the heretics pronounced that the Earth was in fact round. of course, the church executed or silenced as many of the 'round earth fanatics' as it could!(2)
let's take for an example, the doctrine of the church at the time.
priests would have been one of the ways that information was passed to your average serf. transport, control and "advertising" mechanisms were not so distributing the printed word wasn't easy, then there's the small matter of literacy. your average serf wouldn't have been able to read, relying instead on the Clergy to read aloud and singing to the Lord (in Latin). Most books were enormous amd needed a lecturn to support them. (4). Gesta Romanorum (Deeds of the Romans) was the most popular book of that time, and was the source, directly or indirectly, of much later literature, including that of Chaucer, John Gower, Thomas Hoccleve, Shakespeare, and many others.(o). In the early 15th Century, Kings ordered their sheriff's to read a roll of proclaimations, such as "cause to be proclaimed that everyone in the shire, on festival days when he has holiday, shall learn and exercise himself in the art of archery, and use for his games bows and arrows, or crossbolts or bolts, forbidding all and single, on our orders, to meddle or toy in any way with these games of throwing stones, wood, or iron, playing handball, football, 'stickball,' or hockey, or cock-fighting, or any other games of this kind, which are worthless, under pain of imprisonment." (1)
and so on. western europe had only just caught up with 11th century islamic mathematics. some people thought the earth was flat. it wasn't until 1492 that "in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two", when it all changed forever when the heretics pronounced that the Earth was in fact round. of course, the church executed or silenced as many of the 'round earth fanatics' as it could!(2)
Those 'round earth fanatics' were the "conspiraloons" of their day.
It's interesting, if we roll forward into the 16th century, then with the growth of mercantilism we find a corresponding growth in literacy. After the merchant class in parliament refused Charles I demand for gold to fight a war against the bogeymen of the time, the Scots, the parliamentarians made good use of pamphleteering for agitational purposes. This played an important part in mobilizing the peasants, yeoman and town dwellers who together brought an end to monarchist absolutism in 1649 by chopping of the Kings head.
It's interesting, if we roll forward into the 16th century, then with the growth of mercantilism we find a corresponding growth in literacy. After the merchant class in parliament refused Charles I demand for gold to fight a war against the bogeymen of the time, the Scots, the parliamentarians made good use of pamphleteering for agitational purposes. This played an important part in mobilizing the peasants, yeoman and town dwellers who together brought an end to monarchist absolutism in 1649 by chopping of the Kings head.
editor
hiraethified
Yep!. They talked utter shite, had an obsessive belief unsupported by facts and - like many a conspiraloon here - refused to acknowledge reality when science had disproved their fruitlooopery.bigfish said:
Needless to say, there's still lots of dodgy websites stuffed full of the kind of laughable cod-science trotted out by woefully unqualified 'experts' - just like the 9/11 conspiraloon sites!
Nice comparison. Spot on!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Mate, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Same with information, you can't compel people to use their critical faculties, you can only provide them with the tools for gnosis.fela fan said:
Of course they don't, because most of 'em are self-aware enough to realise that it isn't just their own security they're sacrificing, but possibly that of their loved ones too.
We all like to feel superior to the Yanks, and have a righteous sneer at McCarthyism, but the truth is that we know (especially in the current political climate) that, what with habeus corpus now set aside, we're as close to McCarthyism in the UK as we've ever been. Not many people want to risk the possible "knock-on" effects of speaking out publicly.
Mind you, that just makes it incumbent on those of us with not a lot to lose to speak out more often and louder.
Oh FFS. Here is what I said;
"In some ways your illiterate 15C serf - a man concerned largely with minding his own business - will prove a tougher customer to manipulate than the likes of many on these boards."
Note the 'some ways'. My point was, as I quoted later in the post, that those who are easiest to deceive are those who think they are immune to deception. It is no matter that we are not 15C serfs, nor live in a authoritarian regime; propagandists are at work on us, and they are very successful, as proved by the Iraq war and WMD - and that's just one example that they didn't quite get away with.
There's one poster in particular who often retorts to a suggestion of such deception with remarks like 'what makes you think you are so clever; do you think we are all stupid'; the emotional appeal which propagandists love. Your 15C serf would be less likely to suffer from this weakness; tell him that Louis XIX was building a super-catapult, and he might say, 'I don't know about that, I just know how to keep chickens'.
... oh and editor, do be careful not to fall off the edge, won't you?
"In some ways your illiterate 15C serf - a man concerned largely with minding his own business - will prove a tougher customer to manipulate than the likes of many on these boards."
Note the 'some ways'. My point was, as I quoted later in the post, that those who are easiest to deceive are those who think they are immune to deception. It is no matter that we are not 15C serfs, nor live in a authoritarian regime; propagandists are at work on us, and they are very successful, as proved by the Iraq war and WMD - and that's just one example that they didn't quite get away with.
There's one poster in particular who often retorts to a suggestion of such deception with remarks like 'what makes you think you are so clever; do you think we are all stupid'; the emotional appeal which propagandists love. Your 15C serf would be less likely to suffer from this weakness; tell him that Louis XIX was building a super-catapult, and he might say, 'I don't know about that, I just know how to keep chickens'.
... oh and editor, do be careful not to fall off the edge, won't you?
editor
hiraethified
I'd like you to list the "many" people on these boards who you think would be easier to manipulate than an "illiterate 15C serf" please.DrJazzz said:
You see, some might find that a fucking offensive insult, so it's only right that you should name those you are slagging off.
I guess it'll be a long list too, seeing as you've compared the illiterate 15C serf with the "likes of many" on these boards.
So who are you referring to here?
Are you suggesting the earth is flat? And there was me thinking that the flat-earth theory had been dismissed centuries ago!editor said:
Who brought the topic up in the first place. Who has consistently posted off topic here? If anyone should apologise it is you! Your manner on this thread has consistently been offensive and antagonistic. And if posting off topic is now an offence on these boards then you should remove yourself first!
Back on topic
The myth of Al Qaeda being responsible for 911 is a fraudulent conspiracy theory promoted by corporate media shills, the USuk government and the Editor.
The myth of Al Qaeda being responsible for 911 is a fraudulent conspiracy theory promoted by corporate media shills, the USuk government and the Editor.
In "Conspiracy" Daniel Pipes writes:
Oh for christ's sake. One can measure the chips on your shoulder in potatoes.editor said:
And do you deny that you are trying to intimidate Raisin D'etre by threatening to ban her? Low, editor, really... look, you made a bit of a gaffe, just laugh it off mate, unless you really want to come across as a tyrannical dictator. Or will you delete the thread to spare your blushes? Wish I could do that
editor
hiraethified
Why won't you back up your disgraceful accusation that "many" people on these boards would be easier to manipulate than an "illiterate 15C serf"?DrJazzz said:
You made the claim so back it up. Or shut the fuck up.
And I'm warning Raisin D'etre after her disruptive behaviour last night. I'd do the same to any other poster posting up a stream of topic-derailing gibberish.
in case you've forgotten, here's the entire contents of four of her posts last night:
1. hmmm
2. del post
3. "Fear is a weapon of mass destructionl"
4. I want... more... find out what peace is .
Anyone who continues to post up off-topic disruptive shit and non-sensical posts faces banning here
vp
ViolentPanda said:You implied that I'd stated a position (along the lines of America being to blame for ObL being in Afghanistan) that I hadn't. If that isn't "putting words in my mouth", I'd like to know what is.
Again:If i had wanted to put words in your mouth i would have used "quotation marks", not a question mark (which implies that i am asking you something, albeit rhetorical)
You don't get it, do you? THERE IS NO "GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN". THERE HAS BEEN NO "GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN" FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS. All there are/has been is a succession of regional warlords, and a rump government that controlled/controls (whichever one was in power, from Najibullah to the Taliban) about a third (at most) of the territory defined as comprising the nation-state of Afghanistan.
Regardless of your definition of government, the taliban were the ruling clan in afghanistan at the time and were actively aiding AQ and OBL. Therefore the yanks had to invade afghanistan to get rid of OBL and AQ and to free the majority of afghanistan from the taliban
The US had NO "RIGHT", under extant international law of the time, to invade Afghanistan. I don't know where you get your ideas and arguments from, but I'd hazard a guess at the media rather than academe.
Spurious. The Taliban did not "have camps all over the country", they had them in the Taliban (majority Pashtun)-held areas of Afghanistan and in the Pakistani (Pashtun) tribal territories. Odd how Pakistan (where ObL, if still alive, most likely is hiding) hasn't been subjected to invasion, isn't it?
Could that possibly be something to do with a lack of natural resources and suitable terrain for pipelines?
they had camps over the majority of the country, only lacking a presence in the north (where the northern aliance was in control). Hence why most of the country had to be invaded to get rid of taliban and AQ.
As for the question re pakistan, did the fact that the pakistani govt are not backing the taliban and AQ pass you by? Hence why the yanks wouldnt and couldnt invade pakistan.
Only if you're illogical!
once again, your points have been counterd. anything else to add?
editor
hiraethified
Bwahahaha! Bonkers fruitloop fuckwit alert!Raisin D'etre said:
So I'm in league with the US and UK government, am I? And I'm actively "promoting" a fraudulent conspiracy theory, am I?
So how do you explain the ten zillion unedited, unaltered posts freely made by people challenging 'The myth of Al Qaeda' here then?
Go on. Try and make sense of your moronic and insulting claim.
Firstly, I didn't quite say that, no matter how much you seek to twist it.editor said:
Secondly I have already well explained the rationale, which is that those who are easiest to deceive are those who think they are immune to deception. That's the observation of conmen, and I suspect propagandists too.
And I wouldn't knock 15C serfs too much. Are you not descended from them?
sweet jesus!
editor
hiraethified
Here's your own words. Wriggle away:DrJazzz said:
"In some ways your illiterate 15C serf - a man concerned largely with minding his own business - will prove a tougher customer to manipulate than the likes of many on these boards."
So who are these "many" people on the boards you're referring to, DrJ?
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
I thought they were made by the now sadly unemployed CIA Mike Yarwoods?
editor said:
And that, THAT, is bannable?? You're having a laugh aren't you?
Aren't you??
The amount of off-topic stuff, eg johnny, mears, pbman, and the likes, and no chance of being banned.
Nah, it's the kind of opinion they come up with that makes you itching to press the ban button.
Poor stuff man.
Similar threads
- Locked