the last thread it sounded like u wouldnt want to see him interogated. now this thread is about AQ being a fabrication. if AQ is the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad and a british national, that sent atta 100000 bucks, dosent that sound strange. where's the boogeyman OBL in the picture???? its not bait, it a question that needs to be answered. and u portray yourself as military but do not want to answer a simple question. its not tread jacking!!! lol......your a tool....pure and simple, that cant think for himself/herself. like i said before, the nazi's in the concentration camps were just obeying orders too????
Ever notice how the Left always tosses "neo-con fabrication" ?conspiracy? or "fear mongering" cards to dismiss everything they are afraid to deal with just like minorities do with their "race card"?
You ever notice how NOTHING of value has EVER come from a neo-conservative agenda, and how their supporters just throw out useless talking points that hold no bearing on the argument at hand?
What exactly have you shown to combat the point that this war is absolutely pointless and useless?
What are these "leader's" greatest accomplishments? Please, spell them out to me and everyone else who has their head on straight, because obviously we cannot understand your slanted moon-speak point of view that these "people" in power somehow have done something substantially impressive or even mildly adequate the last 7 years.
Not that I'm arguing FOR the left or FROM the left, it's just that "you people" seem to throw me in with them, so I'll act the part and take it personally seeing as your attempting an attack on everyone who questions the "official story". What exactly do "you people" have against "lefties" for despising those who have lied to us repeatedly, forged arbitrarily asinine laws and agencies, pissed on our constitution, wasted our money, and killed our people relentlessly for the duration of their reign? God dammit, we're MONSTERS!
You do know that there are conservatives who would like to see the president and his cabinet hanged, too, right? You're a shill.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
Repost from another thread, but I think it pretty much states my thoughts on AQ and the current state of affairs.
I know that AQ exists, and is a credible and proven threat in a few hot spots. I have several friends in the military, one in intelligence, and from every honest assessment I can draw from, I have concluded that AQ is vastly overstated as a threat by certain folks, and vastly understated as a threat by others. We must ask ourselves a few questions, and then decide what is a logical and wise course of action, as nations and as men.
Q : Is AQ a threat to national security?
A : I think so, but not in a direct way, much more so in indirect threats to our economic stability. Something in the line of destroying a major oil pipeline or two could easily cause severe economic pressure due to rising energy costs. At the right time, this could tip a recession into a depression. Further, in nations with a tenuous foothold at the edge of revolution (Pakistan, for example), select assassinations and other enraging actions could descend that nation, and then the region, into chaos.
Q : Is AQ a direct threat to the general citizenry?
A : Not a chance in hell. Statistically, you're probably more likely to be killed by a random allergic reaction or falling down in your bathroom than by *any* terrorist action, AQ or not.
Q : What is the appropriate response to groups such as AQ?
A : Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Nothing can replace field agents. This admittedly is more difficult, due to the vast social differences between our cultures. When intelligence brings concrete or actionable info on the whereabouts and intent of quality targets, we take them out wherever they are, with PRECISE and human-led action. Blowing 100 people to bits, while targeting 5, in a town with 5,000 people just gives you 4,900 more terrorist candidates that now have a personal reason to hate your rotten guts.
Q : Can AQ and the 'War on Terror' be won?
A : No. Guerrilla warfare, and the tactics of the weak (Terrorists) against the authority (Us, in this case) will be a trait of humanity for as long as we exist as a race. As it is currently loosely defined, Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism will probably eventually fade into even more obscurity than it currently is, most religions tend to go through 'reformation' every few hundred years.
Q : Is Islam a violent religion?
A : No more so than any other. In reality, out of ~2 billion Muslims on earth, how many could be classified as 'fundamentalist/violent' at this time, proven by action? Fifty thousand? A hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand? In any case, a truly paltry sum indeed.
Q : What drives the current strife?
A : Convenience. With the fall of the Soviet Union, industries worth trillions went loose from the reins, struggling to find direction and survival amongst this strange new world order. More importantly, a reason was needed for the continued existence of a vast and powerful power structure. As in any such hidden crisis, something scary and fearsome was needed to motivate the general population to support actions and events that would ensure that such aligned individuals/corporations would not just survive, but thrive on the tide of things to come. Terrorism, as old as humanity, was dredged up as a catalyst to unite people into giving up freedom, money, and sometimes even their lives, towards fighting a common enemy. Sadly, rash and fear-driven overreactions to such a generalized idea are counterproductive to actual progress in seriously reducing/capping growth of these kinds of groups.
I know that AQ exists, and is a credible and proven threat in a few hot spots. I have several friends in the military, one in intelligence, and from every honest assessment I can draw from, I have concluded that AQ is vastly overstated as a threat by certain folks, and vastly understated as a threat by others. We must ask ourselves a few questions, and then decide what is a logical and wise course of action, as nations and as men.
Q : Is AQ a threat to national security?
A : I think so, but not in a direct way, much more so in indirect threats to our economic stability. Something in the line of destroying a major oil pipeline or two could easily cause severe economic pressure due to rising energy costs. At the right time, this could tip a recession into a depression. Further, in nations with a tenuous foothold at the edge of revolution (Pakistan, for example), select assassinations and other enraging actions could descend that nation, and then the region, into chaos.
Q : Is AQ a direct threat to the general citizenry?
A : Not a chance in hell. Statistically, you're probably more likely to be killed by a random allergic reaction or falling down in your bathroom than by *any* terrorist action, AQ or not.
Q : What is the appropriate response to groups such as AQ?
A : Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Nothing can replace field agents. This admittedly is more difficult, due to the vast social differences between our cultures. When intelligence brings concrete or actionable info on the whereabouts and intent of quality targets, we take them out wherever they are, with PRECISE and human-led action. Blowing 100 people to bits, while targeting 5, in a town with 5,000 people just gives you 4,900 more terrorist candidates that now have a personal reason to hate your rotten guts.
Q : Can AQ and the 'War on Terror' be won?
A : No. Guerrilla warfare, and the tactics of the weak (Terrorists) against the authority (Us, in this case) will be a trait of humanity for as long as we exist as a race. As it is currently loosely defined, Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism will probably eventually fade into even more obscurity than it currently is, most religions tend to go through 'reformation' every few hundred years.
Q : Is Islam a violent religion?
A : No more so than any other. In reality, out of ~2 billion Muslims on earth, how many could be classified as 'fundamentalist/violent' at this time, proven by action? Fifty thousand? A hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand? In any case, a truly paltry sum indeed.
Q : What drives the current strife?
A : Convenience. With the fall of the Soviet Union, industries worth trillions went loose from the reins, struggling to find direction and survival amongst this strange new world order. More importantly, a reason was needed for the continued existence of a vast and powerful power structure. As in any such hidden crisis, something scary and fearsome was needed to motivate the general population to support actions and events that would ensure that such aligned individuals/corporations would not just survive, but thrive on the tide of things to come. Terrorism, as old as humanity, was dredged up as a catalyst to unite people into giving up freedom, money, and sometimes even their lives, towards fighting a common enemy. Sadly, rash and fear-driven overreactions to such a generalized idea are counterproductive to actual progress in seriously reducing/capping growth of these kinds of groups.
You're right Socio, there are no Neocons, they are a fantasy of the left, and fear has never been exploited for political reasons. You caught us.
Note, I'm not endorsing the post above yours; I'm just pointing out that your rebuttal to it is very poor even if the post is wrong.
Of course, since the only race issue you appear to recognize is its exploitation for politics, not that there's any real issue there, you're probably pretty hopeless.
No, but it's implied. Are you going to address anyone posts or just with helpless little remarks?
I will clear this whole matter up for everyone go here and get this movie, buy it or pay per view it. It will spell it all out for you in living color, in fact I dare all you neo-con fabrication" ?conspiracy? or "fear mongering" claimers to watch this.
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
Great, nutty right-wing propaganda - see the reviews praising it from Fox people, some military, the right-wing movie critic Michael Medved et al. You think I'll give them money?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
vs. nutty left-wing propganda?
I don't see as either one of these being more credible than the other. Both have their wacky slants.
What's telling though is who sees a slant in one and not in the other.
No doubt there is slant in just about any documentary, I'd say few if any don't have a slant as most everyone goes into anything with a view on the topic. I'll give the people that offer their media for free versus those that charge me the benefit of doubt anytime. The best documentaries are the ones where the makers go into the making of the film with one view and come out thinking otherwise. One movie like that is "No end in Sight". Which can be found here.
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Did Curtis make his films for free?
I look at Planet Earth as a documentary. Where politics is concerned I'm not sure there is such a thing as a documentary though, free or not.
superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
And yet it continues. Hillary's 3am ad helped her to win Ohio and Texas. As soon as the Cold War was over, something had to take its place.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,862
- 84
- 91
its simply distorting reality. it makes links that don't really exist. if you pick and choose select events here and there around the world through history and try to force them into a story, its really nothing more than a conspiracy theory. its not much more than a rehash of old chomsky nonsense but gussied up. he doesn't even portray leo strauss in an accurate manner, but how would most people know that. its a disingenuous film that is meant to exploit the ignorance of most of its viewers. thats how propaganda works.
you can see how far he goes to distort things to fit his narrative when he tries to say dirty bombs are nothing to be afraid of. as if having to either evacuative for decades or remove a decent chunk of a city and cart it off to get rid of radioactive contamination is insignificant
the fact is that compared to any conventional explosive a dirty bomb is definitely a weapon of mass destruction. yes, its not going to kill millions, or perhaps many at all, but its going to cause some massive trouble. and this is how curtis operates. he works through careful omission.go listen to david icke sometime, you'll see a similar narrative.
you want specifics?
The power of bad television
http://www.nationalreview.com/.../davis200410211043.asp
beware of the holy war
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/bergen
as richard curtis knows, with clever cutting, one can do incredible things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjl7gK4HGU
curtis creates a cartoon of history using this technique.
right, one ad makes a win
of course thats how it works, when you don't win, suddenly its just a dirty trick obama spent tons of money and couldn't pull it off, why? his support isn't as deep as you'd think.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter