Noam Chomsky goes woo

[240-185]

He now claims that there are no significant evidence that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks :(

uzNhAo1zBD4

[ScottyMate]

I don't hear him saying that Al-Qaeda weren't ultimately responsible. Only that he believes the US had no significant evidence to connect Afghanistan to 9/11 at the time of the invasion. Noam Chomsky has talked about the absurdities of 9/11 conspiracies.

[uke2se]

I don't really think that what he's talking about is woo. He's just talking about what has been uncovered about the Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, and that it didn't really exist as a network prior to 2001.

As I understand it, what is called Al-Qaeda cells are really just individuals connected by an idea rather than a solid structure. They are able to get funding for their terror projects by leaders of the radical Islamist movement, but there's no army of terrorists.

The invasion of Afghanistan was to me totally expected and in a way understandable. That doesn't really change the fact that the US didn't have evidence that the attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. In fact, don't we always tell the twoofers that the terrorists weren't men in caves?

Note that Chomsky isn't saying anyone other than Muslim extremists committed the terrorist attacks. In fact, he implies that Muslim extremists were behind them, just no the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan. I agree with him there. With the exception of monetary support, I don't think anyone who were in Afghanistan in 2001 had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

[WTC Dust]

I don't really think that what he's talking about is woo. He's just talking about what has been uncovered about the Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, and that it didn't really exist as a network prior to 2001.

As I understand it, what is called Al-Qaeda cells are really just individuals connected by an idea rather than a solid structure. They are able to get funding for their terror projects by leaders of the radical Islamist movement, but there's no army of terrorists.

The invasion of Afghanistan was to me totally expected and in a way understandable. That doesn't really change the fact that the US didn't have evidence that the attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. In fact, don't we always tell the twoofers that the terrorists weren't men in caves?

Note that Chomsky isn't saying anyone other than Muslim extremists committed the terrorist attacks. In fact, he implies that Muslim extremists were behind them, just no the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan. I agree with him there. With the exception of monetary support, I don't think anyone who were in Afghanistan in 2001 had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Wow. It looks like you don't believe the official plane conspiracy theory.

[Quad4_72]

I don't really think that what he's talking about is woo. He's just talking about what has been uncovered about the Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, and that it didn't really exist as a network prior to 2001.

As I understand it, what is called Al-Qaeda cells are really just individuals connected by an idea rather than a solid structure. They are able to get funding for their terror projects by leaders of the radical Islamist movement, but there's no army of terrorists.

The invasion of Afghanistan was to me totally expected and in a way understandable. That doesn't really change the fact that the US didn't have evidence that the attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. In fact, don't we always tell the twoofers that the terrorists weren't men in caves?

Note that Chomsky isn't saying anyone other than Muslim extremists committed the terrorist attacks. In fact, he implies that Muslim extremists were behind them, just no the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan. I agree with him there. With the exception of monetary support, I don't think anyone who were in Afghanistan in 2001 had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Where would you say Osama was at the time of the attacks? He was the financier.

[Chorduroy]

Is "The Looming Tower" way off base? Because if not, it clearly shows how Al-Qaeda came to be, and why Afghanistan is of primary concern when it comes to their terrorist roots.

[Dave Rogers]

Wow. It looks like you don't believe the official plane conspiracy theory.

Wow. It looks like you always see exactly what you want to see, no matter what's actually there.

Dave

[uke2se]

Where would you say Osama was at the time of the attacks? He was the financier.

Note that I said "with the exception of monetary support". Bin Laden was in Afghanistan to the best of anyone's knowledge. That's why I said the invasion wasn't unexpected and that it was understandable.

[RedIbis]

I don't really think that what he's talking about is woo. He's just talking about what has been uncovered about the Al-Qaeda network after 9/11, and that it didn't really exist as a network prior to 2001.



Uh, no. What's he's saying is that the Bush administration did not have evidence to link the alleged plotters to 9/11. It's pretty simple really.

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

Now I don't know if this means Chomsky has been spreading the "woo", whatever the hell that means, but it sure doesn't sound like he's been convinced by the so-called evidence provided so far.

[Oystein]

Chomsky, in effect says that, according to the FBI, the operational planning and preparation of 9/11 wasn't done by residents of Afghanistan, and that therefore the Taliban are not to be blamed with hosting that particular terror cell; because the operational planners were residents of Germany and then UAE.

I interprete that as Chomsky at least tentatively accepting that the FBI assessment was correct - and provided no reason to invade Afghanistan.

Chomsky is the Great Prophet of Blowback. It is entirely in line with his life-time work that he would regards this attack by grieved non-westerners as a perfect example of blowback. It wouldn't make any sense at all for him to think inside job.

[uke2se]

Uh, no. What's he's saying is that the Bush administration did not have evidence to link the alleged plotters to 9/11. It's pretty simple really.

They didn't at the time. They do now.



Now I don't know if this means Chomsky has been spreading the "woo", whatever the hell that means, but it sure doesn't sound like he's been convinced by the so-called evidence provided so far.

Chomsky is convinced that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic extremists and that twoofers have nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

[RedIbis]

They didn't at the time. They do now.



That's what you're saying.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Uh, no. What's he's saying is that the Bush administration did not have evidence to link the alleged plotters to 9/11. It's pretty simple really.

After the US military went into Afghanistan, evidence was recovered that proved not only Al-Qeada and Osama Bin Ladens guilt, but also Taliban foreknowledge and complicity.

[RedIbis]

After the US military went into Afghanistan, evidence was recovered that proved not only Al-Qeada and Osama Bin Ladens guilt, but also Taliban foreknowledge and complicity.

Is this the magic Kandahar tape?

[Oystein]

...
Chomsky is convinced that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic extremists and that twoofers have nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

And what a thorough smack-down that is! :cool:

RedIbis, do you agree that this a thorough smack-down of the Twoof Movement by Chomsky? :D

[Thunder]

I haven't seen any hard evidence that the Taliban were aware of the 9-11 plot.

[uke2se]

That's what you're saying.

It is. This is why crimes aren't solved until the evidence is gathered. The problem is - as Chomsky says - that the evidence before the invasion wasn't enough to warrant an invasion. This makes the war less than legal. As it happened, evidence was recovered.

[uke2se]

I haven't seen any hard evidence that the Taliban were aware of the 9-11 plot.

Me neither. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I doubt many would argue that the Taliban were behind 9/11.

[Miragememories]

"I haven't seen any hard evidence that the Taliban were aware of the 9-11 plot."Me neither. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I doubt many would argue that the Taliban were behind 9/11.
bolding is mine

Interesting to see you change of attitude about hard evidence.

MM

[Thunder]

Me neither. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I doubt many would argue that the Taliban were behind 9/11.

i would like to think that if it existed, I would have seen it.

[triforcharity]

bolding is mine

Interesting to see you change of attitude about hard evidence.

MM

But it is something that is plausable.

Unlike space beams and Hush-A-Boom.

Neither of which are plausable.

[ImANiceGuy]

The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the U.S would just show them some evidence. They did not, nor have they ever, have/had any. Al Quaeda is a frabricatiion of the CIA.

Hows that for woo.....

[Dave Rogers]

The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the U.S would just show them some evidence.

Unfortunately, they were using the 9/11 truther definition of 'evidence', which means 'anything that makes me think the US government did it'.

Dave

[ImANiceGuy]

Oh really?? Interesting Statement...

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2925

The Taliban asked President Bush to present evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks and stated that if the evidence were sufficient, it would cooperate in turning him over to the proper authorities. President Bush refused to do so. Ironically, the Taliban, a disgusting, bloodthirsty regime, agreed to play by the rules of international law, while President Bush, president of a democratic, relatively free society, refused.

From : http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda.html

Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV:

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

So Dave, youre frigging wrong, even in your lame attempt at a joke.

[lionking]

So Dave, youre frigging wrong, even in your lame attempt at a joke.
So the video of bin Laden claiming responsibility was a fabrication? Who do you think responsible?

[uke2se]

bolding is mine

Interesting to see you change of attitude about hard evidence.

MM

The only change is in your head. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. However, to make a case for controlled demolition of the WTC like you are, you need evidence, and you have none.

BTW, I thought you had me on ignore.

[uke2se]

Oh really?? Interesting Statement...

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2925

The Taliban asked President Bush to present evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks and stated that if the evidence were sufficient, it would cooperate in turning him over to the proper authorities. President Bush refused to do so. Ironically, the Taliban, a disgusting, bloodthirsty regime, agreed to play by the rules of international law, while President Bush, president of a democratic, relatively free society, refused.

From : http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda.html

Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV:

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

So Dave, youre frigging wrong, even in your lame attempt at a joke.

Did you just miss the first posts of this thread? What Chomsky is saying is that at the time, there were not much evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11. The attack on Afghanistan was thus unjustified from a legal perspective. As it happens, evidence of Bin Laden's involvement has since been uncovered, making the invasion somewhat more justifiable.

By the way, the discussion we're having in this thread is the one we ought to be having. Twooferism smothers all attempts at this kind of discussion with massive injections of woo. This is why I personally loathe twooferism. (For you semantic acrobats out there, I did not say I loathe twoofers. Just twooferism.)

[ImANiceGuy]

So the video of bin Laden claiming responsibility was a fabrication? Who do you think responsible?

Which video is that?

Taken from: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

Afghanistan: Bin Ladin Denies Involvement in Terrorist
Attacks in US
Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press News Agency in Pashto 0855 GMT 16 Sep 01
[FBIS Translated Text] Peshawar: A statement by Usama Bin Ladin on the US
explosions, translated from Arabic into Pashto. Following the latest explosions in the
United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I
have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have
been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the
perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest I am residing in the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-
Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such
acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory. - OBL

[beachnut]

Which video is that?

Taken from: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

Afghanistan: Bin Ladin Denies Involvement in Terrorist
Attacks in US
Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press News Agency in Pashto 0855 GMT 16 Sep 01
[FBIS Translated Text] Peshawar: A statement by Usama Bin Ladin on the US
explosions, translated from Arabic into Pashto. Following the latest explosions in the
United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I
have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have
been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the
perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest I am residing in the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-
Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such
acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory. - OBL

That is why the terrorists boarded planes in the US. You are so easy.

UBL said he would do it. Then until he hid, he claimed too bad USA and lied, you believe liars, like 911 truth, so UBL fooled you too, then he said oops we did it.

The best you can do is post nonsense. 19 terrorists did 911, they are dead, and you can't figure out 911 given the answers and 9 years.

[ImANiceGuy]

Did you just miss the first posts of this thread? What Chomsky is saying is that at the time, there were not much evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11. The attack on Afghanistan was thus unjustified from a legal perspective. As it happens, evidence of Bin Laden's involvement has since been uncovered, making the invasion somewhat more justifiable.

By the way, the discussion we're having in this thread is the one we ought to be having. Twooferism smothers all attempts at this kind of discussion with massive injections of woo. This is why I personally loathe twooferism. (For you semantic acrobats out there, I did not say I loathe twoofers. Just twooferism.)

No, my information is offered in conjunction with Chomsky's hypothesis; which I agree with. However, there was not "not much" evidence, there was none.

The war on Afghanistan was certainly unjustified because the ruling and recognized government asked the US gov't for evidence in return for extradition, and they could not produce any, so they invaded! Talk about imperialism.

[beachnut]

No, my information is offered in conjunction with Chomsky's hypothesis; which I agree with. However, there was not "not much" evidence, there was none.

The war on Afghanistan was certainly unjustified because the ruling and recognized government, asked the US gov't for evidence, and they could not produce any!

Oh yes, the dolt-government too stupid to hand over UBL. UBL was already wanted for terrorist acts. You continue to fail adding to 9 years; will you make it 10? yes

Wow, you missed a lot of evidence. Publish your findings, you will be rewarded with nothing. You have nothing but delusions on 911.

[bill smith]

Noam Chomsky always knew that 9/11 was an inside job, right from the very first second. But he is the ultimate pragmatist and saw no point in trying to run down a fait accompli. He would consider that a waste of time . He gave a talk in Harvard I think it was ion early 2002 in which he made that abundantly clear.

But that doesn't really matter. Now he is saying that America and Britain bombed the hell out of Afghanistan based on zero evidence. This unavoidably means that they owe Afghanistan Trillions in damages. Bang go your pensions guys.

This is the real Al-Quaeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related

[ImANiceGuy]

Noam Chomsky always knew that 9/11 was an inside job, right from the very first second. But he is the ultimate pragmatist and saw no point in trying to run down a fait accompli. He would consider that a waste of time . He gave a talk in Harvard I think it was ion early 2002 in which he made that abundantly clear.

But that doesn't really matter. Now he is saying that America and Britain bombed the hell out of Afghanistan based on zero evidence. This unavoidably means that they owe Afghanistan Trillions in damages. Bang go your pensions guys.

This is the real Al-Quaeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related

Those who deny CIA/DOD connections to Bin Laden are as delusional as those who think projected holograms on the twin towers account for the plane crashes. Al-Quaeda is BS.

Thank you Bill....I would count Chomsky among the many historians/philosophers who beleive 9/11 was a global conspiracy, but also see no point in throwing themselves off of a proverbial bridge.

You do waaaaaaaay better to take Samuel P. Huntington's route and write a book which promotes differences and war....(Clash of Civilizations)

Approximately 3000 people dies on 9/11; over 1,000,000 innocent people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are their lives worth less than yours?

EDIT: Beachnut, your posts are a useless waste of space.

[uke2se]

Noam Chomsky always knew that 9/11 was an inside job, right from the very first second.

Is that why he said it wasn't in the video posted above? Is it pragmatic for him to mean one thing and say another? On the other hand, I'm sure you have a video of him saying 9/11 was an inside jobby job, right?

ETA: Now see what happened. Twoofers invaded the thread and immediately threw reality out the window. If anyone ever asks me why I hate twooferism, I'll point to this thread.

[MikeW]

Those who deny CIA/DOD connections to Bin Laden are as delusional as those who think projected holograms on the twin towers account for the plane crashes. Al-Quaeda is BS.
Please, point us to your evidence.

[Quiproquo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

Chomsky contends the cui bono argument is fallacious. I wonder if this eminent scholar believes that cui bono is intrinsically fallacious or if is fallacious only in regard to the 9/11 events. To state that "all countries" benefit from an action does not imply that any of the countries are innocent, on the contrary.

Cui bono may not tell us who is the culprit, but it may point in the right direction.

[Quiproquo]

Please, point us to your evidence.

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.

[uke2se]

Chomsky contends the cui bono argument is fallacious. I wonder if this eminent scholar believes that cui bono is intrinsically fallacious or if is fallacious only in regard to the 9/11 events. To state that "all countries" benefit from an action does not imply that any of the countries are innocent, on the contrary.

Cui bono may not tell us who is the culprit, but it may point in the right direction.

Did you notice how he said that the 9/11 conspiracy theories (that's what you guys spew) have an extremely low probability and that they get in the way of proper rational discourse?

Any Latin words you want to hang your hat on?

[uke2se]

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.

You are off topic. He asked for evidence. Not pseudo-philosophical BS.

[1337m4n]

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.

http://myfacewhen.com/images/104.jpg

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is this the magic Kandahar tape?

Yes it is.

It is quite damning.

[Quiproquo]

Did you notice how he said that the 9/11 conspiracy theories (that's what you guys spew) have an extremely low probability and that they get in the way of proper rational discourse?

Any Latin words you want to hang your hat on?

Being hit by lightning more than twice has an extremely low probability of occurring, yet it happens. What's your point?

[uke2se]

Being hit by lightning more than twice has an extremely low probability of occurring, yet it happens. What's your point?

My point is that Chomsky doesn't believe what you believe, and the video I posted is a scathing criticism of the twoof-movement. You loons get in the way. There are those of us with legitimate criticism towards the Bush administration, and you block this discussion. Do you have anything to say for yourself?

[leftysergeant]

The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the U.S would just show them some evidence. They did not, nor have they ever, have/had any. Al Quaeda is a frabricatiion of the CIA.

I have never heard any rational person with credentials say that al Qaeda is a CIA friont.

Bunel doesn't count. He is a known liar and nutbar.

That supposed MI6 expert smokes so much dope it has damaged his brain. His manboobs are evidence of that. Ganja is known to cause gynecomasty.

[bill smith]

WE should be aware that this is perhaps the most sensitive aspect of 9/11 for your government. If you doubt it listen to your President warning you off...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjbX8LjWWh4&feature=player_embedded

I wonder if Noam is aware of that ?

[ElMondoHummus]

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.

http://myfacewhen.com/images/104.jpg

Is there even a name for this fallacy? The only one I can think of is Non-Sequitur, since the conclusion most definitely does not follow the premise.

[Quiproquo]

Is there even a name for this fallacy? The only one I can think of is Non-Sequitur, since the conclusion most definitely does not follow the premise.

Explain.

[leftysergeant]

This is the real Al-Quaeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c&feature=related

I don't have time to sort through hours of twoofer videos. what credentials does this jerk Burke have?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh really?? Interesting Statement...

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2925

The Taliban asked President Bush to present evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks and stated that if the evidence were sufficient, it would cooperate in turning him over to the proper authorities. President Bush refused to do so. Ironically, the Taliban, a disgusting, bloodthirsty regime, agreed to play by the rules of international law, while President Bush, president of a democratic, relatively free society, refused.

From : http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda.html

Absolutely and utterly false. The Taliban knew that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Bin Laden described his role in the attacks on video captured by US forces during Afghanistans liberation.

x0FVeqCX6z8

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[7]

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hows that for woo.....


Stale.

[Feldspar]

Is there even a name for this fallacy? The only one I can think of is Non-Sequitur, since the conclusion most definitely does not follow the premise.

Closed circle.

[leftysergeant]

WE should be aware that this is perhaps the most sensitive aspect of 9/11 for your government. If you doubt it listen to your President warning you off...

No, he's just saying that twoofers are nuts and flakes and not working in the interest of "truth" as defined as "reality."

[bill smith]

I don't have time to sort through hours of twoofer videos. what credentials does this jerk Burke have?

Who do you find more believable and trustworthy ? The BBC video or Obama's little speech ? lol

They can't both be right..

[Pardalis]

Funny that a guy who's been talking about propaganda for years is now being used by the Iranian propaganda machine PressTV.

[bill smith]

No, he's just saying that twoofers are nuts and flakes and not working in the interest of "truth" as defined as "reality."

You are entitled to your opinion.

[MikeW]

Absolutely and utterly false. The Taliban knew that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Bin Laden described his role in the attacks on video captured by US forces during Afghanistans liberation.
And there was even at least one warning from a Taliban minister that an attack was coming, something that truthers have used before (http://www.prisonplanet.com/did_the_us_ignore_warning_of_911_attack.htm) to support their claims (though it seems that just gets discarded when it's inconvenient).

[ElMondoHummus]

Closed circle.

Mmmm... I don't know if I agree. I'm not that familiar with what the closed argument is supposed to represent other than an an absolutist statement that is unfalsifiable, but by that definition, I'm not sure it really applies. Instead, I more view his statement to be more a type of Faulty Generalization i.e. saying "If 'a' for this, then 'a' for all". Sort of. Does that make sense?

[ImANiceGuy]

Please, point us to your evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy

Just read it....

Edited for civility.

Do not make personal attacks.

[lionking]

Absolutely and utterly false. The Taliban knew that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Bin Laden described his role in the attacks on video captured by US forces during Afghanistans liberation.

x0FVeqCX6z8

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[7]


<truther mode> A clear fake, look at the color of his beard (or the background, or whatever). Can't you shills recognise an obvious CIA production? <truther mode>

[plumjam]

If anyone here fancies a one-on-one debate with Chomsky go ahead and contact him.
That would be immense fun to witness.

[MikeW]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy

Just read it....

Edited for civility.
No. I didn't think there would be any substance beneath your arrogant bluster. And there isn't.

[Dog Town]

Obama's little speech ? lol


:boggled:

[bill smith]

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

[lionking]

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
Explain the video in #49 then.

[jaydeehess]

Is there even a name for this fallacy? The only one I can think of is Non-Sequitur, since the conclusion most definitely does not follow the premise.

Agreed.

Julia is a red head, Julia is a girl, therefore all girls are red heads.

9/11 was a giant conspiracy. However, this conspiracy assumption is based on erroneous premises. Therefore all conspiracies are based on erroneous premises.:rolleyes:

[Feldspar]

Mmmm... I don't know if I agree. I'm not that familiar with what the closed argument is supposed to represent other than an an absolutist statement that is unfalsifiable, but by that definition, I'm not sure it really applies. Instead, I more view his statement to be more a type of Faulty Generalization i.e. saying "If 'a' for this, then 'a' for all". Sort of. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry. English is not my first language. I was thinking circular reasoning, but it's not quite that either. Anyway, it wasn't logic to begin with.

[leftysergeant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy

It just shows that religious whackadoodles infiltrated our anti-Soviet efforts. Still doesn't prove direct funding of ObL.

Are you really that dense?

[ImANiceGuy]

No. I didn't think there would be any substance beneath your arrogant bluster. And there isn't.

Edited for civility.

How many credible sources in that Wiki page link OBL to US Intelligence sources?

I particularily like this quote:

An article in Der Spiegel, in 2007, entitled "Arming the Middle East", Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden "one of the CIA's best weapons customers." [5]

To be fair, there are credible denials that OBL and the 'US Anything' ever had direct contact. I do not beleive these claims. (specifically the info contained within the original wiki link)

[ImANiceGuy]

I'll continue to refer to anyone who denies the CIA funded Mujahadeen fighters including OBL as dense.

Just as any DEW, No-Plane, Pentagon Missle beleivers as well....

On a side note, I can't beleive how stupid WTC Dust is in her eponymous thread.

[lionking]

So no comment about bin Laden's video at post #49. Come on guys, man up. Is it a forgery or not?

[leftysergeant]

An article in Der Spiegel, in 2007, entitled "Arming the Middle East", Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden "one of the CIA's best weapons customers." [5]

And who was his source? What credentials did he have?

[jhunter1163]

Please refrain from personalizing arguments.

[ImANiceGuy]

It just shows that religious whackadoodles infiltrated our anti-Soviet efforts. Still doesn't prove direct funding of ObL.

Are you really that dense?

If you had full knowledge of CIA and OBL accounts at BCCI, I would bet a war in Iraq there would be some solid links. If, in this conversation, you expect me to produce evidence of direct funding, then I will certainly dissapoint you.

However, a mountain of circumstantial evidence exists which supports the OBL/CIA connection.

The most recent being Sibel Edmonds; who as far as I know, has yet to be dissproved.

[Dog Town]

I'll continue to refer to anyone who denies the CIA funded Mujahadeen fighters including OBL as dense.

Why let a lil thing like evidence bother you?:rolleyes:

Just as any DEW, No-Plane, Pentagon Missle beleivers as well....

On a side note, I can't beleive how stupid WTC Dust is in her eponymous thread

I see you fall into the evidence side here, though.

[ImANiceGuy]

And who was his source? What credentials did he have?

Here is a link to the original article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,498421,00.html

AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source.

[ImANiceGuy]

Why let a lil thing like evidence bother you?:rolleyes:

I can ask you the same thing right?

[ImANiceGuy]

Absolutely and utterly false. The Taliban knew that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Bin Laden described his role in the attacks on video captured by US forces during Afghanistans liberation.

x0FVeqCX6z8

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[7]

That's such a fake CIA BS film, I deny it whole-heartledly. This is not Osama Bin Laden. It also goes against many previous statements he made in person to credible journalists.

The CIA created an enemy, and the world has fallen for it hook line a sinker.

[leftysergeant]

Here is a link to the original article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,498421,00.html

AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source.

Der Spiegel, yes. The reporter, I don't know.

[leftysergeant]

That's such a fake CIA BS film, I deny it whole-heartledly. This is not Osama Bin Laden. It also goes against many previous statements he made in person to credible journalists.

The CIA created an enemy, and the world has fallen for it hook line a sinker.

Sorry, but there is no evidence that the tape is fake.

It has been manipulated, of neccessity, to get it from one video format to another. Other details are too blurry to count on.

[Dog Town]

I can ask you the same thing right?

Your claim and all...

[Dog Town]

The most recent being Sibel Edmonds; who as far as I know, has yet to be dissproved.


First you might wanna show she proved something!

[lionking]

That's such a fake CIA BS film, I deny it whole-heartledly. This is not Osama Bin Laden. It also goes against many previous statements he made in person to credible journalists.

The CIA created an enemy, and the world has fallen for it hook line a sinker.
Oh good. You are so certain I assume you have evidence. Please refrain from relying on a truther website.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The most recent being Sibel Edmonds; who as far as I know, has yet to be dissproved.


What has she said that needs to be disproved?

[angrysoba]

The war on Afghanistan was certainly unjustified because the ruling and recognized government asked the US gov't for evidence in return for extradition, and they could not produce any, so they invaded!

The Taliban was recognized by exactly three governments - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. The man they called their guest was a fugitive from a number of countries and was implicated in more than just the 9/11 attacks.

Talk about imperialism.

Okay, then. The Taliban broke out of their Pashtun stronghold of Kandahar by taking over the largely Shia Herat, then Kabul, Bamiyan and Mazar-i-Sharif butchering and vandalizing anyone or anything that conflicted with their narrow interpretation of Islam and its extreme expression.

[angrysoba]

Oh good. You are so certain I assume you have evidence. Please refrain from relying on a truther website.

It must be fake because it would be too embarrassing to be real.

[angrysoba]

As for Chomsky, I seem to remember him saying that the video was not good enough evidence for him as it could be a case of bragging for something he wasn't personally responsible for but wanted to take credit for. He used the example of Bzrezinski claiming to be the architect of the policy to bring down the Soviet Union by funding the mujihadeen against the Red Army but Chomsky thinks it is too unlikely that Bzrezinski could have foreseen the results of this minor funding.

Anyway, since then hasn't there been a letter from bin Laden explaining why he arranged the attacks with a list of various claims, Palestinians, sanctions on Iraq, Russia in Chechnya, China in East Turkestan, Bobby Ewing was brought back in Dallas when he should have been dead...etc...etc...

Anyone have a link?

[TexasJack]

To be fair, there are credible denials that OBL and the 'US Anything' ever had direct contact. I do not beleive these claims. (specifically the info contained within the original wiki link)

How convenient.

An article in Der Spiegel, in 2007, entitled "Arming the Middle East", Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden "one of the CIA's best weapons customers." [5]

So you would take this article, where the author uses no sources to support his claim, over the likes of Ghost Wars, Steve Coll's Pulitzer Prize winning book, that uses credible sources (many who he personally interviewed), that finds no CIA connection to Bin Laden? Well, it's not surprising, you're a truther.I'll continue to refer to anyone who denies the CIA funded Mujahadeen fighters including OBL as dense.


So Steve Coll is dense? How convenient, to dismiss laborious, credible research with the few strokes from the keys of an obscure truther.

[Mr.D]

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.

Quiproquo:

Do you believe "the Government" has infiltrated the "Truth Movement?"

Do you believe there are "disinfo agents?"

[jaydeehess]

I have no problem believing that during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan that OBL was a purchaser of American weapons sold through the CIA.

THAT DOES NOT mean that OBL was a close ally. All it means is that OBL was willing to part with his cash to fight the immediate enemy, the Soviets, and that the USA was willing to use any group that could embarrass the Soviets.

I was alive and an adult at the time and I remember the great mulliing over of the idea of selling advanced weapons, specifically Stinger missiles, to the muhajadeen BECAUSE many factions of them were as opposed to Western influences as they were to Soviet influence, AND that these very same Stinger missiles could in some near future be used against Americans. Either in the middle east or smuggled into the USA to be used against American citizens. Specifically the fear was that they would be used against American airliners to kill Americans.

That was in the 1980s! Has everyone simply forgotten that debate!!??

,,, and the fact that some of those very same Islamic fighters are now attacking western and USA targets, including, on Sept 11/01 hijacking and using airliners as suicide weapons?

[TexasJack]

I have no problem believing that during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan that OBL was a purchaser of American weapons sold through the CIA.

THAT DOES NOT mean that OBL was a close ally. All it means is that OBL was willing to part with his cash to fight the immediate enemy, the Soviets, and that the USA was willing to use any group that could embarrass the Soviets.

I was alive and an adult at the time and I remember the great mulliing over of the idea of selling advanced weapons, specifically Stinger missiles, to the muhajadeen BECAUSE many factions of them were as opposed to Western influences as they were to Soviet influence, AND that these very same Stinger missiles could in some near future be used against Americans. Either in the middle east or smuggled into the USA to be used against American citizens. Specifically the fear was that they would be used against American airliners to kill Americans.

That was in the 1980s! Has everyone simply forgotten that debate!!??

,,, and the fact that some of those very same Islamic fighters are now attacking western and USA targets, including, on Sept 11/01 hijacking and using airliners as suicide weapons?

I definitely think the CIA was supporting the likes of Massoud and Abdul Haq, but were more wary of the more radical mujahideen like Hekmatyar. There is just no credible evidence that the CIA had any direct contact with Bin Laden, being more of a lone ranger in the effort against the Soviets anyway. By the time 90's rolled around, with Bin Laden's radicalism in full swing, the only CIA involvement was trying to devise ways to capture him.

As you observed, the U.S. saw the mujahideen as way to bring the Soviets down, and as soon as that was accomplished, they bailed. In fact, the CIA were desperately trying to buy back the Stingers.

[ElMondoHummus]

I have no problem believing that during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan that OBL was a purchaser of American weapons sold through the CIA.

THAT DOES NOT mean that OBL was a close ally. All it means is that OBL was willing to part with his cash to fight the immediate enemy, the Soviets, and that the USA was willing to use any group that could embarrass the Soviets.

Actually, if I remember correctly what I read in books like Looming Tower, Ghost Wars, etc., Bin Laden was actually pissed that the US bypassed him and gave directly to the Afghan Mujahadeen. As I recall, he was quite put out with the US long before the Sudan ouster resulted in him losing a ton of his fortune and lead him to develop an even deeper grudge against the US.

At least that's what I remember. Anyone who's read those books more recently than I can confirm or correct as necessary. My ultimate point though is that Bin Laden was unhappy with the relative lack of support from the US during the Afghan war against the Soviets. We have to remember that, in spite of all his posturing about Afghanistan, the Arab "travellers" (as the Afghani Mujahadeed called them) were not well respected, and in fact were scorned as dilettantes by the native fighters. My point in bringing that last up is that we can't make the mistake of equating Bin Laden and the Afghani Mujahadeen. He raised funds and recruited volunteers for that conflict, but he and they were not one and the same.

[Pinch]

He now claims that there are no significant evidence that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks :(


I'd like to know why anyone is taking what Chomsky says seriously in the first place. This is the intellectual moron who denied the killing fields of Cambodia and defended the Pol Pot regime for so many years. That is genocide-denial. His is the classic fool wrapped up in academia, spouting all the complex verbiage of pseudo intellectualism and anyone who takes him as some sort of intellectual heavyweight deserves to be duped and made a fool of.

[angrysoba]

I'd like to know why anyone is taking what Chomsky says seriously in the first place. This is the intellectual moron who denied the killing fields of Cambodia and defended the Pol Pot regime for so many years. That is genocide-denial. His is the classic fool wrapped up in academia, spouting all the complex verbiage of pseudo intellectualism and anyone who takes him as some sort of intellectual heavyweight deserves to be duped and made a fool of.


Yes, but it is amusing that those Truthers who expected him to be a natural ally of theirs found that even he thought they were insane and refused to endorse their nonsense.

His criticisms of their methodology were spot-on particularly his observation that getting an article published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies was like getting an article published in the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies.

[Pardalis]

The war on Afghanistan was certainly unjustified because the ruling and recognized government asked the US gov't for evidence in return for extradition, and they could not produce any, so they invaded! Talk about imperialism.

So you respect and support the Taliban?

You think they were a legitimate and dignified government?

[angrysoba]

Actually, if I remember correctly what I read in books like Looming Tower, Ghost Wars, etc., Bin Laden was actually pissed that the US bypassed him and gave directly to the Afghan Mujahadeen. As I recall, he was quite put out with the US long before the Sudan ouster resulted in him losing a ton of his fortune and lead him to develop an even deeper grudge against the US.

At least that's what I remember. Anyone who's read those books more recently than I can confirm or correct as necessary. My ultimate point though is that Bin Laden was unhappy with the relative lack of support from the US during the Afghan war against the Soviets. We have to remember that, in spite of all his posturing about Afghanistan, the Arab "travellers" (as the Afghani Mujahadeed called them) were not well respected, and in fact were scorned as dilettantes by the native fighters. My point in bringing that last up is that we can't make the mistake of equating Bin Laden and the Afghani Mujahadeen. He raised funds and recruited volunteers for that conflict, but he and they were not one and the same.

He was on the same battlefield as the US but the so-called Afghan-Arabs were not the people that were ear-marked for CIA-funding. There were, I think, seven warlords with their own mujahideen that had been selected by the ISI for funding nicknamed the Seven Dwarves. The one who received the bulk of this was Hekmatyar - arguably much worse than Osama bin Laden. While many Afghan Arabs served under some of those warlords they were actually quite unpopular with the Afghans who often considered the Wahhabi Arab fighters to be condescending when they lectured the Afghans on Islam and destructive of their culture - for example, desecrating Afghan graves.

OBL didn't see much combat in Afghanistan anyway, mostly providing logistics and running propaganda operations. The Afghan Arabs were notoriously bad fighters compared to the Afghans anyway.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That's such a fake CIA BS film,

No one in the field of image analysis has said this.

I deny it whole-heartledly.

And what was your degree in?

This is not Osama Bin Laden.

Yes it is. My "some random anonymous dude on the internet" cancels out your "some random anonymous dude on the internet". Since the man in the video being Bin Laden was our starting point, he is therefore Osama Bin Laden.

U R WTFPWN3D.


It also goes against many previous statements he made in person to credible journalists.

The bad-guy didn't do it because he said so? Really?

The CIA created an enemy, and the world has fallen for it hook line a sinker.

This goes against many previous statements made by CIA officials in person to credible journalists.

[MikeW]

First you might wanna show she proved something!
No, you're forgetting that truthers don't feel they need to prove anything.

It's like the Der Spiegel line about bin Laden being one of the CIA's best customers for weapons. The article offers not a jot of supporting evidence, but as with all truther claims, that doesn't matter. It's convenient, so they'll seize on it and accept it as true. Then demanding we prove its false, which is utterly impossible as they'll just deny whatever opposing arguments are offered. While claiming anyone who disagrees is "dense".

[Dave Rogers]

You are illogical: if you question the premises of any conspiracy, then you must question the premises of all conspiracies.
Is there even a name for this fallacy? The only one I can think of is Non-Sequitur, since the conclusion most definitely does not follow the premise.

Actually, it's not a fallacy, because it's perfectly true; it is, of course, important to question the premises of any conclusion. What it is, in fact, is a piece of misdirection, in that it suggests that there are premises of conspiracies that MikeW is not questioning. In fact, as is perfectly clear from his site, he does a very good job of questioning premises and finding answers. So what quiproquo is suggesting is that, if you question the premises of one conspiracy and find them invalid, you must therefore find the premises of all conspiracies invalid, even though they are different premises. This, of course, is a non sequitur, a strawman and an epistemological failure to boot, notwithstanding the fact that it's a very common one among conspiracy theorists; dvictr's recent thread on the use of mental patients for STD research is a classic example of an attempt to refute the strawman that skeptics deny the existence of all conspiracies.

Dave

[Sceptic-PK]

I'd like to know why anyone is taking what Chomsky says seriously in the first place. This is the intellectual moron who denied the killing fields of Cambodia and defended the Pol Pot regime for so many years. That is genocide-denial. His is the classic fool wrapped up in academia, spouting all the complex verbiage of pseudo intellectualism and anyone who takes him as some sort of intellectual heavyweight deserves to be duped and made a fool of.


Andy Clark: Another criticism that is sometimes levelled against you goes back to Cambodia and some of your writings there. This is from Noah Cooperman from Florida in the US

Noah's email: "Does the Professor harbour any feelings of guilt for acting as an apologist for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge during the period of the genocide in Cambodia. Or is mass murder by leftwing extremists still acceptable?"

Noam Chomsky: I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it. He's just repeating propaganda he heard. If you ask him, you'll discover that he never read one word I wrote. Try it.

What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else.

And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever talks about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was probably 200,000. So we said let's tell the truth about it. It's a crime, but it's not like anything you said. It's interesting that nobody ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that's fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that's horrible, it becomes apologetics. We should learn something about ourselves. If you're interested in the truth, which you ought to be, tell the truth about yourself and tell the truth about others. These fabrications had an obvious political purpose.

Incidentally, we continually criticize the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that, too, we said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster. So yes, our position was consistent throughout. There's been a huge literature trying to show that there was something wrong in what we said. To my knowledge, nobody's even found a comma that's misplaced. And therefore what you have is immense gossip. My guess is that the person who just wrote this in has never seen anything we wrote, but has heard a lot of gossip about it.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

I don't have any real opinion, but since I have heard this accusation before, I thought I'd throw this out there.

[PhantomWolf]

I'll continue to refer to anyone who denies the CIA funded Mujahadeen fighters including OBL as dense.

Care to explain why Pakistan would fund Maktab al-Khadamat which was already getting major funding from Saudi Arabia and other Arab sources to being in foreign fighters who were considered useless by the Mujahideen, rather than giving that funding directly to the ones actually doing the fighting, the Afghani Mujahideen?

[thecritta]

Just like the start of the video i wouldnt mind seeing a TV interview
where bush is bought in and confronted with some of the hard questions.

I certainly wouldnt mind asking him some of the harder questions myself.
But it seems in this country that no one in government has to be held accountable
for anything, nor forced to be asked and have to answer any hard questions which
is just utter bs really just absolute utter bs.

[PhantomWolf]

Just like the start of the video i wouldnt mind seeing a TV interview
where bush is bought in and confronted with some of the hard questions.

I certainly wouldnt mind asking him some of the harder questions myself.

While they may not have had "hard evidence" when they went in, they certainly had very strong circumstantial evidence. The airlines released the names of the hijackers to the authorities on 9/11 itself based on the flight records and several stewardesses on different planes identifying the hijackers on their planes via seat numbers. Airport security found Atta's luggage in the first day too, which added to the evidence as to who actually did it.

Once you have the names and countries of those that were responsible it's not hard to make a list of groups that they likely were connected too, and when we are talking 19 men who are a mix of Saudis, and other arab nations, as of 2001 that list wasn't very long and with both Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef both locked up in US jails, that pretty much left one name well and truely on the top of the list.

[TruthersLie]

Being hit by lightning more than twice has an extremely low probability of occurring, yet it happens. What's your point?

Really?

Because according to truthers the incredibly low probability of three buildings collapsing due to fire on the same day shows that it is impossible (it is a slight twist on the 1st time in history cannard).

so you mean that events with low possibilities of happening do in fact happen? Really?

(and the world record for being struck by lightening is 7x by one person who lived through them all)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

so you mean that events with low possibilities of happening do in fact happen? Really?


I don't know about anyone else, but I sigh in despair every time I see a truther say something reasonably intelligent. Not because it's a truther saying it, but because if they were only conscious of these little tidbits and were capable of piecing them together, they'd actually be a fairly rational individual.

Instead, they're either spouted in frustration or used as nothing more than ammunition against an opponent rather than something to apply to information they receive.

[ImANiceGuy]

So you respect and support the Taliban?

You think they were a legitimate and dignified government?

....of course the Taliban are dignified, I said that in my previous post right?

Or did I not say that and you are just attributing the statement to me?

[NutCracker]

Mmmm... I don't know if I agree. I'm not that familiar with what the closed argument is supposed to represent other than an an absolutist statement that is unfalsifiable, but by that definition, I'm not sure it really applies. Instead, I more view his statement to be more a type of Faulty Generalization i.e. saying "If 'a' for this, then 'a' for all". Sort of. Does that make sense?

I believe it is basically Faulty Generalization indeed: if exists C in CONSPIRACIES such that questionPremiseOf(you, C) then forall C in CONSPIRACIES questionPremiseOf(you, C).

[bardamu]

Really?

Because according to truthers the incredibly low probability of three buildings collapsing due to fire on the same day shows that it is impossible (it is a slight twist on the 1st time in history cannard).

so you mean that events with low possibilities of happening do in fact happen? Really?

(and the world record for being struck by lightening is 7x by one person who lived through them all)

It depends on whether there's a better explanation or not.