Call Me Simple
Call me simple, but I just can’t understand why I have to pay the banks’ losses but I don’t get a share of their profits.
I know that the music business is very profitable, but I am still cautious about investing in CDs.
I am sorry to admit it, but I may have been wrong. George W. Bush may not be the worst possible president after all.
Michelle Obama must be very smart. They say she "earns" $370,000 a year.
More clues from the radio news about the way we are now: I learned the other day that President-elect Obama is "tackling the economy." But I thought the economy was already bruised and down? What good will tackling it do?
What is the Obama administration going to do with those of us who just don't want to "come together"?
If the Republicans had any flair (and any knowledge of history) they would point out that their party had the first black president. A good case can be made that Warren G. Harding had almost as much African "heritage" as Obama.
I admit to extreme annoyance at people who voted for George Bush the first time (and even twice) because, they claim, they were fooled into thinking he was a "conservative." The only fooling going on was unforgivable self-delusion. George Bush had not a single conservative in his entourage or among his friends, advisors, or mentors. He had purged all conservatives from the Texas Republican Party and replaced them with his personal apparatchiks. He was a notorious friend of illegal aliens and as Governor had pushed through a law giving illegals free access to state colleges. A major plank of his platform was the federal takeover of public schools and the federal invasion of religion by grants. He prevented Pat Buchanan from speaking at HIS convention. All of this was glaringly and painfully obvious in 2000.
Of course, you will say that in a presidential "debate" Bush advocated a "humble foreign policy." When did something a Bush says in a campaign have any relation to what he does in office? Bush's leftward drift, takeover by the neocons, and huge expansion of federal power and expenditure would have happened even without 9/11. There was no great change or conversion after 9/11—only an acceleration on the path he was already on. To move toward a leftist concentration of federal power is the attractive path of least resistance for any administration.
I am further continually astounded by the apparently widespread hallucination that the Republican Party is the "conservative" party. In its entire history of a century and a half, the Republican Party has never conserved anything. It has never had as a goal the intention of conserving anything worthwhile. It has instigated revolution in the service of certain monied interests and has acquiesced in every radical change as long as those interests were not threatened.
It is now a commonplace to say of our past eight years that "conservatism" has been discredited forever by George W. Bush and his followers. Conservatism has not been discredited, but Republicanism has. However, leftists much prefer to announce the death of conservatism, a possible obstacle to their agenda, and keep around Republicanism—one of their many assets.
Entries(RSS)
Marx on prostitution?
Bravo.
Whatever else?
Even better.
Got the point?
Of course not.
@45Iliya Pavlovich
"he handled himself well in Russia’s interpretation of their sovereignty in Osetia, Abhkazia"
Are you kidding! He handled that terribly.
Putin at the Olympics pleaded with Bush to phone the Georgian leader to stop his blitz and invasion of South Ossetia before troops were sent in Bush.
Then we have Bush at the UN talking about how Russia violated the UN charter (remember Kosovo and the Iraq war Mr Bush as well as the recent raid in Syria).
Russia didn’t exactly have a choice in recognising S Ossetia and Abkhazia after Georgia tried to ethnically cleanse the entire S Ossetian population.
Weeks before Russia was trying to secure an agreement were ethnic Georgians displaced since Georgia abolished Abkhazia’s autonomous status and sent in troops to control the region to return.
Now even the main stream media is recognising that Georgia initiated the conflict without justification firing on Russian peacekeepers and civilians and there is evidence of Georgian forces committing war crimes.
Then there Bush giving Kosovo independence that he helped create an Islamic mafia state run by the KLA whose government affiliated militias have ethnically cleansed and destroyed the property of almost the entire Serb population there including 700+ churches.
US army units were even members of the KLA co-ordinating attacks with NATO during the 99 war.
The Georgia conflict is part of Brezinski Grand Chessboard strategy.
He references in his 97 book how Abkhazia needs to be integrated in Georgia before it can join NATO.
“he did manage to (considerably) weaken the Al Quaida. Whoever thinks that Al Quaida will be terminated with the death of Bin Laden is sadly mistaken. Long after Bin Laden is dead and gone the movement will persist - the true cures are elsewhere”
That’s because Al-Queda does not exist.
Newsweek a couple of years ago did an article admitting that OBL network consisted of him and about 20 other militants.
He did not run or finance the camps and were not set up to train militants to fight the West but to fight in Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia, Central Asia, Kashmir and Algeria.
Every militant linked to terrorist attacks since and including 9/11 have links to Bosnia, Chechnya or both.
Al-Queda is not an organisation but a computer database of militants of CIA/Pentagon military sub-contractors like MPRI who are effectively mercenaries and been used to fight in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and in the Armenian/Azerbaijan disputed area against Armenians.
If OBL was behind 9/11 way hasn’t the FBI find charged him with 9/11?
Look up the Bin Laden Most Wanted poster on the FBI website.
In closing he did a terrible job getting us involved in two fake war crippling the economy, initiated Homeland Security run by Michael Chertoff (literal Russian translation of his name means Son of the Devil) who is a dual citizen of another country and has financial links to a person suspected of financing both WTC attacks and gave us the Patriot Act written by Chertoff before 9/11 to protect us against a fake enemy. Only Woodrow Wilson is a worse President than Bush.
Mr. Salemi @ 50
In none of my post, have I advocated the "intrusion of the state." I do not view the state as the transforming agent of the human soul; that is the sole purview of the Living Christ and His Church, His Body and His Bride, which serves as a city on a hill to a dark work and as salt to heal and preserve. I have said nothing about brothels and harassing prostitutes. Such was not in the penumbra of my post to which you responded.
My initial post was to Etienne as a complement or supplement to that which he had said.
“Your view of the causes of prostitution is naively Marxist. You think that brothels are created by wicked entrepreneurs solely, who corrupt young women for financial goals?”
You completely missed my point, which was that it is the young men visiting brothels who bear the primary moral responsibility for the existence of the brothels, as they are the ones who subsidize the brothel’s existence.
When someone visits a brothel they are doing one or more of the following things:
1. Paying someone (whether male or female) to force another human being into having sex with them.
2. Paying someone (whether male or female) to pressure another human being into having sex with them.
3. Paying someone (whether male or female) to bribe another human being into having sex with them.
It’s like if you hired a hitman to harm your enemy. Maybe you hired him to kill your enemy, maybe you hired him to maim your enemy, maybe you hired him just to scare your enemy into compliance.
But whatever you hired him to do, you bear moral responsibility for whatever moral harm comes as a result of your decision to use money as an enticement toward the commission of evil.
“That’s absurd. Some brothels are run exclusively by the women who work in them.”
From the standpoint of my point, those unusual cases only make the men who visit brothels all the more inexcusable, as in those cases 100% of the money they pay into the brothel goes toward the enticement of members of the female sex into self-degradation and the continuation thereof.
“Yes, some unscrupulous persons take advantage of that fact to enrich themselves. But if you arrested every pimp and madam and white-slaver in the world, you would still have prostitution.”
We wouldn’t have as much of it as we have now, and that would be of profound benefit to a vast number of people.
And in any event, one could use the above sort of specious argument against the enforcement of any standard or law.
For example, one could say that even if we went strongly after child molesters, they’d still be child molestation.
While true, what this ignores is that they’d be less child molestation, and that actual human children would thus be spared the horror of being sexually abused.
This would constitute the achievement of an important moral good, whether or not it gibes with the idiotic notion that if you can’t save everyone, why bother trying to save anyone…
“To think otherwise is to believe that sinful behavior is purely the result of external impetus.”
Surely sinful behavior is not purely the result of external impetus.
However, it is under the influence of external impetus, and the moral implications of this truth are profound.
According to you the Catholic Church has not yet figured out the implications of this truth.
Why this is the case and what it means are not subjects upon which I feel qualified to comment.
Mr. P. at #45. You have a real talent for satire.
Robert M. Peters @ 53
In your original post you said "Even our pagan ancestors, acting on the light which God chose to give them, understood that a sense of oughtness was the first step on the way to emancipating ourselves from our barbaric compulsions and becoming free. Now, in our time, freedom is defined as the emancipation from oughtness so that we can pursue our compulsions."
All of which is unexceptionable, but what specific real-world conclusions and proposals do you draw from it? You say you have no interest in closing down brothels or policing private sexual acts. OK, fine. Then we have no disagreement. As long as your statement doesn't imply some sort of tedious evangelical campaign against "public immorality" or "indecency," I'll agree that it is philosophically correct.
Bob Johnson @ 54
There is a major logical contradiction in your post.
First you say that prostitution (in whatever form) is the product of the evil demands of lust-driven men. These men, you say, bear the responsibility for the existence of brothels, because their money subsidizes the establishments.
What you are saying is that the demand for illicit sexual activity is what creates the supply. Well, fine... that's precisely what I was arguing in post # 50, when I said that "Prostitution exists because of human weakness and sinfulness."
But then you go on to say that if we prosecuted all the traffickers in sex, we could reduce the amount of prostitution going on. That's precisely the OPPOSITE of believing that the demand for illicit sex is what generates the supply!
It's also the same tired argument that is used to justify our absurd and fascistic Drug Wars -- namely, that if we interdict the supply of drugs we will somehow make a dent in drug addiction. Well, it hasn't worked. The only result has been to drive up the price of drugs. And that is precisely what will happen when you start prosecuting sex traffickers -- there still will be prostitution, but it will cost more and take up more precious police time.
You can't have it both ways. Either prostitution is produced primarily by the demand of men for sex, or it exists on its own apart from demand. Which is it?
My argument is not specious, nor is it designed to make a case against the enforcement of laws in general. The issue at hand is what sort of laws we should have, in terms of what is prudent or possible.
Human laws are not designed to make people "good" or "moral." They are designed to maintain an orderly and free society. We have human laws against murder not because murder is "evil" or "immoral," but simply because murder is a socially disruptive act that cannor be tolerated without a breakdown of societal cohesion. We do not have laws against the use of vulgar language (a morally "bad" thing) because vulgar language isn't important enough to worry about. We do not have laws against being nasty to your relations (also a sinful act), because there aren't any social implications that the government needs to worry about in such nastiness. It's only if you pick up a baseball bat and club your relations that the government takes a legitimate interest.
The same thing with prostitution or any other sexual act between consenting parties. As long as it doesn't cause social disruption, the state shouldn't take an interest in it one way or the other. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the state rightfully takes an interest in sexual acts that have a public dimension, such as adultery, rape, molestation, and flagrant displays of pornography. And even in regard to prostitution, the state may justly intervene to prevent the abuse of prostitutes by their pimps and madams, or to prevent the spread of venereal disease, or to limit offensive public solicitation.
I don't say that prostitution is a victimless crime, the way that idiot liberals do. The victim of every sin is the sinner, who will pay for it eventually in Purgatory or Hell. But trying to police private sexual acts between consenting parties is stupid and self-defeating. It's not the state's job to save your soul for you. Unfortunately, Evangelical Protestants and their Ultramontane branch-office on the fringes of traditionalist Catholicism don't see it that way.
"First you say that prostitution (in whatever form) is the product of the evil demands of lust-driven men. These men, you say, bear the responsibility for the existence of brothels, because their money subsidizes the establishments."
I said that they bear the primary moral responsibility for the existence of brothels, because there would be no such thing as a brothel if it wasn't for them creating the demand for such establishments in the first place, and because their perversion is the engine that drives the continued existence of brothels to a much greater extent than anything else.
"But then you go on to say that if we prosecuted all the traffickers in sex, we could reduce the amount of prostitution going on."
I said that for the simple reason that it is true.
It's like with hitmen. Even though the primary moral responsibility for a hit falls on the head of the man who instigated it by taking out a contract, it nonetheless remains the case that the hitman bears very real and non-trivial moral responsibility.
And perhaps more importantly from a pragmatic standpoint, if the government sees fit to use the law against hitmen, it will have the profoundly valuable moral effect of making it far more difficult for evil men to take out contracts on the lives of their fellowmen (by drying up the supply of hitmen, and by tending to deter the young from entering the field of murder for hire).
And it is the same way with prostitution. If the law has the decency and honor to fall down hard upon pimps, madams, and white slavers; it will be made far harder for wicked and lust driven men to translate the power that resides in money into a sick sexual power over members of the female sex.
"We have human laws against murder not because murder is “evil” or “immoral,” but simply because murder is a socially disruptive act that cannor be tolerated without a breakdown of societal cohesion."
That is simply not true. The reason we have laws against murder is because to murder a person is a grave affront against that person and his or her family, and in addition an affront against the profoundly valuable and useful principle that a human life is worth something.
If your logic held in this country, it would be considered less objectionable (and in some sense less illegal) to murder someone from a weak and docile family, for in those cases it is far less likely that the family of the murder victim would respond by partaking of societal cohesion undermining revenge.
As this is not the case in America or any Western nation I am aware of, you are clearly creating a fictional picture of why certain laws actually exist.
“The same thing with prostitution or any other sexual act between consenting parties.”
Sexual acts committed by a female in the context of prostitution are far less likely to be consensual than sexual acts committed by females outside the context of prostitution.
Also, they are far more likely to be committed in the context of the threat of punishment, whether implied or otherwise.
“As long as it doesn’t cause social disruption, the state shouldn’t take an interest in it one way or the other.”
If you came to have no job, and if you came to have no family or friends who cared to have you around, someone could quite easily kill you without causing the slightest bit of social disruption. (In fact, it is quite possible that it would make society better off.)
If this were to occur, would it be your position, as the last breath left your lungs, that your murder was in no way of interest the state as it failed to cause social disruption?
Bob Johnson @ 57
As we say here in New York, you gotta be kidding me.
In the United States, some of the most stringent laws on the books are those directed at "hit-men," or hired killers. Murder for hire is one of the few crimes in our country that will almost automatically lead to a death sentence.
Do you think these draconian laws have had the slightest effect upon the availability of hit-men? Be reasonable! Murder-for-hire takes place every day. All the laws have done is to make hiring hit-men somewhat more expensive (on the same pattern as what our imbecile drug laws have accomplished with price of drugs). But when a demand exists, a supply will follow. As long as someone needs a hit-man, hit-men will be available.
And no, I don't believe that we should therefore repeal all laws against murder-for-hire. Murder is a socially disruptive act and it should always be threatened with the severest sanctions. This is true no matter the social status of the injured party; your hypothetical about someone "with no family or friends" is absurd. It is in the interest of the state to promise its protections to ALL its citizens, regardless of social standing. In fact, it would be extremely dangerous and disruptive, politically speaking, if the state were to make invidious distinctions among its citizens, allowing some to be killed more easily and with impunity than other favored citizens. It would be a politically stupid thing to do.
You say that "Sexual acts committed by a female in the context of prostitution are far less likely to be consensual than sexual acts committed by females outside the context of prostitution."
This shows me that you don't know a great deal about prostitution or prostitutes. That's OK -- it speaks well for your moral character. The plain fact (even if Evangelicals don't like to admit it) is that many females enter prostitution willingly. They don't have to be "coerced" by pimps or white-slavers. The pay is excellent and untaxed. And some of them actually enjoy the work. While it is true that some women are trapped and exploited by unscrupulous third parties, a great many other young women enter the field for pure capitalist reasons. Many of them grow rich, and retire at 30.
The image of the helpless young thing kidnapped and sold into degradation by a criminal, or the poor seduced and abandoned farm girl driven to sell her favors on the street, is pure nineteenth-century mythology.
I reiterate: Human laws are not promulgated in order to guide persons into the paths of ethico-religious morality. That is a mistaken idea that liberals have. Our liberal enemies are constantly trying to use law in order to manipulate the behavior of free citizens, and to direct that behavior into paradigms that liberals like. Unfortunately, a number of religious types seem to suffer from this same disorder, though of course they have different paradigms for us to follow.
Human laws exist to maintain order, peace, and social cohesion.
You haven't answered a number of my main points:
!. Why are there no laws against using vulgar language? (after all, it's a sin).
2. Why are there no laws against being nasty to your relations? (after all, it's a sin).
3. Why was prostitution legal in every Roman Catholic country before the Anglo-American puritans came along, with their Low-Church Protestant priggishness?
"Do you think these draconian laws have had the slightest effect upon the availability of hit-men?"
Yes.
All statistical evidence points us toward the conclusion that harsher penalties against Crime X deter far more people from committing Crime X than it incites to commit Crime X.
While I have not seen data specific to the crime of being a hitman (possibly due to there being so few hitmen in the grand scheme of things), I see no reason this crime would be the exception to the powerful general statistical trend.
"All the laws have done is to make hiring hit-men somewhat more expensive"
Would you prefer it if hiring a hitman was cheaper, so that the service would be available to more people than it is currently?
"But when a demand exists, a supply will follow."
I get it, the free market is all.
But this statement is a gross oversimplification.
There is a strong demand on the part of people just outside the borders of China to get into China, but something or other seems to be stopping the callow capitalists of the world from supplying them with their heart's desire.
I think that thing is called the law, and the fear thereof.
"Murder is a socially disruptive act"
That is not true at all if you murder someone who contributes nothing to society, and who happens not to be missed by anyone.
Do you actually think that it's what a murder does to society in terms of disrupting its smooth and orderly progression toward god knows what that makes it justified to punish the murderer, and not what does to the human being who was murdered?
That is about the most rabidly anti-individual viewpoint I have ever encountered.
"In fact, it would be extremely dangerous and disruptive, politically speaking, if the state were to make invidious distinctions among its citizens, allowing some to be killed more easily and with impunity than other favored citizens. It would be a politically stupid thing to do."
That would depend entirely on the form of political system favored in a particular time and place, and that seems to something you don't understand.
And more importantly, if your legal framework is set up in such a way that it is the mere fear of political disruption that holds back the state from allowing the murder of less useful people, said legal framework is hardly better than moral anarchy cloaked in a false and fragile veneer of stability.
"!. Why are there no laws against using vulgar language? (after all, it’s a sin)."
You seem to be saying that if everything considered immoral is not illegal, than nothing widely considered immoral should be illegal.
There is no rationality to this viewpoint, and all it does is create a false "either/or" choice between two undesirable extremes:
One being an extreme with too much freedom on the part of the individual to harm and exploit his fellows and to degrade and demean his culture with no fear of sanction. And the other being an extreme with not enough freedom on the part of the individual to express himself and to find his place in society as an autonomous individual.
"2. Why are there no laws against being nasty to your relations? (after all, it’s a sin)."
Because it is not, nor has it ever been, the place of the state to arbiter emotional spats between relatives.
Now if one relative steals from the other, it is the place of the state to intervene.
If one relative defrauds the other, it is the place of the state to intervene.
If one relative sexually exploits the other, it is the place of the state to intervene.
But mere personal disputes and arguments are a private matter best left to the knowledge and judgment of the parties directly involved.
“3. Why was prostitution legal in every Roman Catholic country before the Anglo-American puritans came along, with their Low-Church Protestant priggishness?”
There is historical testimony from multiple independent historical sources that the Roman Catholic Church was making money off the brothels, and especially off of selling indulgences to the johns who visited the brothels, and thus felt no desire to resist their power.
I’m not sure if they went so far as to put a brothel owner in charge of a major church, in the way that the modern day church saw fit to put Bernard “I decided to look the other way as children were sexually abused” Law in charge of a major church in Rome.
But it wouldn’t really surprise me, and I must confess some lack of familiarity with the depth of the historical record relating to the relevant time period.
"The plain fact (even if Evangelicals don’t like to admit it) is that many females enter prostitution willingly."
This in no way takes away from the utter horror inflicted upon those females who enter prostitution unwillingly.
For the sake of those females alone, the funding and structure of the prostitution industry should be subjected to as great an attack as can be made upon it.
"The pay is excellent and untaxed."
More often than not, they see very little of it.
"Many of them grow rich, and retire at 30."
Even with these rare cases, the rate of drug addiction is staggering.
Looks like I overestimated this forum.
WHAT IF?
Q: G. W. wanted to measure Russian reaction by employing MPRI in Georgia - (so what if some small country fails - no skin off our teeth)?
A: Russia reacts in nanoseconds - showing that they are not vulnerable during the time of transition.
A: G. W. sends only symbolic help and the destroyer McFaul is kept at a safe distance as not to provoke the irritated Rusians. Some degree of sybmolic help is sent. The Beltway rhetoric kicks into higher gear (just for kicks and giggles - no real goal in mind)
Q: G. W. is faced with Korea and Iran acquiring Nuh-kuler weapons and raw materials.
A: He must act, but he doesn't. He condemns the two countries and relies of heavy handed diplomacy keeping the US out of another possible military nightmare
If G. W. ever were a trigger happy Texan, he also showed restraint in the above two instances. Did he have some serious shortfalls? Yes, and then some.
G. W. was the only US official who publicly called for the closing of the Hague mockery - no other leader did it (except for Putin). The Kosovo (re)solution was injected by the likes of Biden, DioGuardi, Hillary et all. - not by G. W. If you want somebody to blame for Kosovo look towards Clintons, DioGuardi, Charles Shummer. Joe Lieberman, Richard Holbrooke et all.
Yes there is some modest satire here, but it's found rather in the mirror not as overtly as it was deemed.
I have twice composed a lengthy reply to Bob Johnson's posts at #59 and #60, and twice they have been deleted. If the moderators here want me to cease contributing, let them just tell me directly.
Joseph Salemi (@62):
Have your replies included links? They may be getting caught in our spam filter. No one here is deleting your replies.
@61Iliya Pavlovich
The US did employ MPRI in Georgia.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10283
It would not have mattered who the president is of course the outcome would have been the same. Bush is just a front man aloud to run for presidency from the establishment oligarchy.
That’s why the same group of people have been running foreign policy for years sometimes decades like the case of the covert war against Russia nearly 30 years with the Brezinski clan at the spearhead in enacting this policy.
The Balkans policy which started in 89 and Operation Blue part of the covert war against Russia.
Georgia Soros Rothschild front man and affiliated to western intelligence agencies has been involved in Eastern Europe since 86 with his Open Society NGO setting economic policy for nations including Russia which was designed to destroy the Russian economy so it could be controlled by a mafia oligarchy .
Do you think the Russian mafia is actually Russian?
George you missed the point. My prior remarks were deemed naive or just plain satire in my view of G.W.s legacy.
I started my quick outline with the farewell speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower to show that even the most militant of presidents can be converted from a hawk to a dove. MPRI is not the issue. Of course they were there, just as they were present in 1991 Croatia's "Storm" (Oluja). The issue is that most of us are too naive to view one person's sum of actions in a greater context. Somebody claimed Al Quaida didn't exist. OK. Who is it that titled a BBC article "Al-Qaeda vows to hurt Obama's US" linked at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7737710.stm and attributed to al-Zawahiri?
The degree of human stupidity is truly immeasurable, just as in Einstein's: "The Universe and human stupidity are limitless - although I am not sure about the first one"
As simple as that. There will always be conspiracy theorists, 9/11 doubters, Holocaust deniers and all sorts of oddballs, but enough is enough.
@65Iliya Pavlovich
"Somebody claimed Al Quaida didn’t exist. OK. Who is it that titled a BBC article “Al-Qaeda vows to hurt Obama’s US”
The degree of human stupidity is truly immeasurable"
That’s your proof that that there is an Al Queda?
That Al Zarqawi released a video?
So what?
The Al-Sahab the jihadist production company whose logo is shown in the bottom right hand side was operating as part propaganda and recruitment in Bosnia through a Saudi backed NGO to militants in the Balkans and Chechnya which operated openly under the administration of UN Representative and MI6 agent Paddy Ashdown.
In 2002 Bosnia authorities were pressured to investigate these NGO’s and found that Abdullah Bin Laden was running Chechen militant camps.
The German indictment against Mohammed Atta mentions that he was recruited to fight in Kosovo and Chechnya through Basayev and Khattab websites.
The 9/11 indictment charges that Abdullah Bin Laden financed Atta’s stay in the US as well as the other militants.
That those documents found in Afghanistan were written in Arabic and Russian and Colin Powells own UN address about Iraq mentions militants were developing and planned to use chemical weapons in Chechnya.
In 2003 all the militants from Afghanistan were transferred to the Panski Gorge in Georgia where the US already had a strong military presence impossible without US assistance.
“The degree of human stupidity is truly immeasurable”
Your right you have just shown your blind stupidity and the general public for not having any critical thinking of what the government has told use like how is it possible that an international terrorist organisation intended to destroy western civilisation can operate right under the CIA, MI6 and other western intelligence noses where there intelligence was actively financing and training Islamic militants and countries that have a strong relationship to the CIA Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The director of the ISI help transfer $150,000 to Atta while in the US and on 9/11 he was in Washington DC meeting with US officials.
Have you actually looked at the contradictory evidence before making such a statement?
Here’s a start Zero: An investigation into 9/11.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI
“As simple as that. There will always be conspiracy theorists, 9/11 doubters, Holocaust deniers and all sorts of oddballs, but enough is enough.”
So the Neocon’s have a written PNAC document advocating multiple wars and stating that “a new Pearl Harbour” will bring about these events quickly who have senior positions in the Bush administration, media and the Pentagon yet we are not to be suspicious or question if there was a government motive for 9/11.
Or Larry Silverstein the owner of WTC and other buildings near the WTC towers specifically puts in an insurance clause about a terrorist attack were he would receive a massive payout of billions of dollars 6months prior to 9/11 and only his 5 or 6 buildings collapse although other buildings were closer to WTC like the Hilton hotel.
Reporters, the mass media and government officials told us that Serbs were running death camps and committing genocide which we now know to be absolutely false. There is a history of government and media deception so why not about 9/11.
They lied about Iraq which was a consequence of 9/11.
Chronicles should state that if you have more than one internet link you comment won't get posted.
I was wondering why I could not respond to @65Iliya Pavlovich until I deleted his BBC link.
__ _ ___ _ _WARRE is not fought in BATTEL alone_ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _
Fill in the blanks from a reputable source, or consult Thommas Hobbes.
I'll prove that Al-Quaida doesn't exist when everybody else proves that Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
Contrary to the accepted postulates that a proof of anything NOT existing is impossible and can only be achived indirectly by proving that the contrary exists and by pure deduction one must preclude the other. There is no way to prove that which does not exist - not in the empirical or otherwise acceptable scientific sense - but this too must be over the heads of many in this forum.
65Iliya Pavlovich wrote:
"...Holocaust deniers and all sorts of oddballs,..."
Since forensic, scientific, and documentary evidence permit one to conclude that the claim of the 6 million holocausted 'chosen ones' is the most colossal lie in all of history (just a little paraphrasing and literary license here!), suppose you provide the evidence so support your claim.
Just bear in mind that in a court of law eye witness testimony is given the lowest credence among the different types of evidence, as follows:
1) documentary
2) forensic
3) other scientific
4) eye witness
On this basis the 'holocaust deniers' have much more credible evidence at hand than a million eye witnesses.
Even the Israeli Supreme Court tossed out eye witness testimony from the "chosen ones" when it overturned the death penalty of "Ivan the Terrible" Demjechuk (sp?).
H.F. Wolff
@68Iliya Pavlovich
It would be simply to say see if the Easter bunny existed by checking the historical reference when he was first mentioned, when his image was first used in advertising, etc.
Do a Google search on the history of the Easter bunny and it will describe its origins.
"There is no way to prove that which does not exist - not in the empirical or otherwise acceptable scientific sense"
It is easy to prove if Al-Queda exists or not.
If there was a mass international organisation there would be evidence a paper trail of financial records and transactions, intelligence reports and trial transcripts of those accused of plotting terrorist attacks yet there is know evidence of this.
So called Al Queda is an international criminal organisation so when terrorists are plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks the FBI gathers and presents evidence for a criminal organisation yet we have not been presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
The FBI on its own website does not charge Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks.
I take it you haven’t watched the 9/11 Documentary Zero that I mentioned above.
Even with Zundels holocaust trail in Canada he cross examined historians and accounts of eyewitness testimony as well a conducting forensic examination of Auschwitz that he presented to the court to back up his assertion that there were no homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz but delousing chambers.
Serbs where charge with running a Bosnian death camp but we now know it was a refugee centre. The cameraman that accompanied the reporter that shot the footage now admits that his bosses at ITN ordered him to find stories of Serb atrocities so they made up the Bosnian camp story.
Here’s a link to a 30 minute documentary on how they created the hoax through careful editing.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/judgement.rm
George what part of "something does not exist" can't you understand?
Anything that is claimed to NOT exist can not be proven. I can't remember the last time I encountered such a dimwitted view on life. Very simply that which is non existant can not be quantified, counted, colored, tasted, touched, felt, smelled, drawn, etc. Therefore its existance can not be affirmed. Nobody, since times immemorial has ever fallen into this trap deeper than you did. If it does not exist it is therefore by definition impossible to prove. You can't prove that there is no pink elephant sitting behind you, in your room while you're typing - can you?
Did you ever even at an elementary level study any philosophy or any other science of critical thinking (logic, ethics, etc.)? I bet you never did.
If Al-Quaida does not exist it's by far the worst possible outcome since nobody can prove that it doesn't exist - therefore it must exist.
One dog at a time please (or wolf).
I have met hundreds of concentration camps survivers myslef and remain convinced that the camps did exist - keep your neo-Nazi views to yourself. Jasnovac in Serbia is one of those camps, aside from the irrefutable evidence presented at Nuremberg among other places. I love the Holocaust deniers, gay-bashers and all other forms of abuse of our liberties where such venomous thoughts could be freely advocated under the rights of the First Ammendment. Freedom of speech does should not encourage us to speak rubbish.... But, that's the price we pay for having all sorts of freedoms. Wasn't there a large detachment of Patton's 7th Army that entered Auschwitz-Birkenau and witnessed the piles of dead bodies - they all must have died in their sleep - you'd think.
72Iliya Pavlovich
Wow, what a tour de force! I am truly impressed by your comprehension of the English language, the ability to disseminate information, and to formulate an argument.
Brilliant, sir! Bravo! Well done and all that!
And the piece de resistance: "...a large detachment of Patton’s 7th Army that entered Auschwitz-Birkenau and witnessed the piles of dead bodies..."
You, sir, need to frequent with a better class of the population, one that, at least occasionally, knows when to tell the truth.
Just in case the sarcasm escapes you, the Russians recently celebrated their "liberation" of Auschwitz. The Americans didn't get within (rough guess) 300 miles of the place. And as our legal friends would have it "falsehood in one, falsehood in all...".
As I stated in my earlier post, eye witnesses (and fairy tale tellers) pale in comparison to forensic and scientific evidence.
Why don't you contact your compatriots at the Simon Wiesenthal centre in Los Angeles, and inquire what documentary and scientific evidence they have to substantiate their claims?
Why would anyone accept eye witness evidence of the"chosen ones" if this was not even acceptable to the Israeli Supreme Court?
H.F. Wolff
"Anything that is claimed to NOT exist can not be proven"
Of course it can because you are counter asserting someone’s claim that something does exist that there is a financial, military, media, political and philosophical dimension to an organisation run by OBL.
There is no proof to this assertion hence it does not exist
“If it does not exist it is therefore by definition impossible to prove. You can’t prove that there is no pink elephant sitting behind you, in your room while you’re typing - can you?”
Yes you can because it has characteristic that define what it is wither it be quantified, counted, colored, tasted, touched, felt, smelled, drawn, etc.
By proving something does not exist you can disprove that it does exist, that it does not meet the requirement of characteristics that qualify it as existing.
Take your pink elephant for example for there to be a pink elephant it has to meet a certain criteria height, weight, physical characteristics and colour.
The governments claim that OBL runs an organisation called Al Queda which they characterise as this that OBL is its leader that he helped set up and run training camps in Afghanistan to fight western countries and interests around the world recruiting and training Islamic militants from around the world to set up Islamic regimes in predominant Muslim populated countries.
That’s what governments classify the Al Queda terrorist organisation as meeting this criteria. None of this is true and there is no evidence to back up this assertion hence an organisation called Al Queda does not exist.
“If Al-Quaida does not exist it’s by far the worst possible outcome since nobody can prove that it doesn’t exist - therefore it must exist. “
If it doesn’t meet the criteria/characteristics then it doesn’t exist.
Cows across the US have formed a resistance organisation Moo–Queda and preparing for guerrilla warfare.
Its leader Moosama Bin Lden has issued a Fatwa calling for attacks on the American populace for killing and eating cow meat in there restaurants and supermarkets.
You must believe such an organisation exists then as you can’t prove that it doesn’t.
72Iliya Pavlovich
To continue...
"...the irrefutable evidence presented at Nuremberg...".
And the justices from the US Supreme Court that witnessed the proceedings at the "Trials at Nuernberg" described it as a Kangaroo court and victor's justice, anything but a legal trial in our accepted sense of the word.
And evidence produced by torture is unacceptable in civilized countries, in case you didn't know.
H.F. Wolff
@72Iliya Pavlovich
Nobody denies the camps existed or that Jews died.
What they do dispute is there purpose that the camps were used for slave labour and gas chambers were delousing chambers to kill lice to stop the spread of diseases in the camps like Typhus.
One of the most famous people killed at Auschwitz was Anne Frank who died of disease.
@76 George
On the other hand, if the Diary of Anne Frank is a hoax, as many claim, then perhaps she never existed either. The paperback book as published by Pan claimed it was "found on a rubbish dump." However, some parts of it were not published, why not? I'm very skeptical of revisionist history concerning the so-called holocaust.
77Etienne Gervaise:
On the holocaust issue I have satisfied myself that the numbers don't add up. Documentary and modern scientific evidence support this conclusion.
In another forum it was pointed out to me that Anne Frank and her family were originally from Frankfurt, Germany.
Contrary to popular opinion the Germans did not throw every Jew into a concentration camp; there were tens of thousands of Jewish soldiers and generals in the German armed forces.
On this basis I think that the Frank family was considered subversive to German interests and interned.
International Judaism had declared war on Germany in 1933 and the Germans were protecting their security by interning Jews with international Jewish interests.
The USA and Canada interned the Japanese for merely being Japanese.
H.F. Wolff
@77Etienne Gervaise
Elle Weisels book Night does not mention the gas chambers saying that Jews were killed by being thrown into burning ditches.
The thing I object to is its use as a political tool the best case in point is the Balkans wars during the 90's.
Simon Wiesenthal and others lobbied Clinton as well as a mass media campaign for the US to intervene on behalf of Muslims.
The narrative was Milosevic was the new Hitler and the Serbs were the new Nazis killing innocent Muslims because the Serbs were evil racists.
Bosnians were portrayed as being in the same position as Jews were during WW2 and if we didn’t intervene Bosnians would be genocided by our inaction.
Of course they never mentioned the Bosnian regime was running international training camps and raiding Serb villages and slaughtering Serb civilians.
I remember when I was younger in Glasgow with my parents there was a stand with people handing out flyers with a boy about the age of 5 in front of a bombed out building in a street ( I’ll assume it wasn’t doctored ) and the image was in black and brownish colour.
This connotation was definitely there to give it a grainy WW2 style appearance playing into the whole history repeating again if we don’t respond myth.
Herr Wolff you forgot to sign off with: Sieg Heil!