Noam Chomsky goes woo - Page 2

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th November 2010, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Is this the ~~magic~~ Kandahar tape?

Yes it is.

It is quite damning.

Quiproquo · 10th November 2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Quiproquo

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:45 PM

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=pjbX8...layer_embedded

I wonder if Noam is aware of that ?

ElMondoHummus · 10th November 2010, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Originally Posted by Quiproquo

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.

Quiproquo · 10th November 2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

This is the real Al-Quaeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgp...eature=related

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

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th November 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

Oh really?? Interesting Statement...

http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...le.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.co...-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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

"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 · 10th November 2010, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

Hows that for woo.....

Stale.

Feldspar · 10th November 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 10th November 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

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 · 10th November 2010, 03:01 PM

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

bill smith · 10th November 2010, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

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 · 10th November 2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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 to support their claims (though it seems that just gets discarded when it's inconvenient).

ElMondoHummus · 10th November 2010, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Feldspar

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 · 10th November 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by MikeW

Please, point us to your evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osa...en_controversy

Just read it....

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

Do not make personal attacks.

Posted By:jhunter1163

lionking · 10th November 2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

"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 · 10th November 2010, 03:26 PM

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

MikeW · 10th November 2010, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osa...en_controversy

Just read it....

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

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

Dog Town · 10th November 2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Obama's little speech ? lol

bill smith · 10th November 2010, 03:33 PM

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 · 10th November 2010, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Explain the video in #49 then.

jaydeehess · 10th November 2010, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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.

Feldspar · 10th November 2010, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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 · 10th November 2010, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osa...en_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 · 10th November 2010, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by MikeW

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

Edited by jhunter1163:

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 · 10th November 2010, 04:43 PM

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 · 10th November 2010, 04:43 PM

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

leftysergeant · 10th November 2010, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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 · 10th November 2010, 04:48 PM

Please refrain from personalizing arguments.

Posted By:jhunter1163

ImANiceGuy · 10th November 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

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 · 10th November 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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?

Quote:

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 · 10th November 2010, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

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

Here is a link to the original article:

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

AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source.

ImANiceGuy · 10th November 2010, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

Why let a lil thing like evidence bother you?

I can ask you the same thing right?

ImANiceGuy · 10th November 2010, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

"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 · 10th November 2010, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

Here is a link to the original article:

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

AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source.

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

leftysergeant · 10th November 2010, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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 · 10th November 2010, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

I can ask you the same thing right?

Your claim and all...

10th November 2010, 02:40 PM	#42
Quiproquo Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 211	Originally Posted by uke2se 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?
Quiproquo Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 211

10th November 2010, 02:43 PM	#43
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,129	Originally Posted by Quiproquo 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?
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,129

10th November 2010, 02:43 PM	#44
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 02:45 PM	#45
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	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=pjbX8...layer_embedded I wonder if Noam is aware of that ?
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 10th November 2010 at 03:18 PM.

10th November 2010, 02:47 PM	#46
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,944	Originally Posted by 1337m4n Originally Posted by Quiproquo 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.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

10th November 2010, 02:39 PM	#41
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by RedIbis Is this the ~~magic~~ Kandahar tape? Yes it is. It is quite damning.

10th November 2010, 02:48 PM	#47
Quiproquo Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 211	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus 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.
Quiproquo Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 211

10th November 2010, 02:53 PM	#48
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by bill smith This is the real Al-Quaeda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgp...eature=related I don't have time to sort through hours of twoofer videos. what credentials does this jerk Burke have?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 02:56 PM	#50
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy Hows that for woo..... Stale.

10th November 2010, 02:57 PM	#51
Feldspar New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus 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.
Feldspar New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 7

10th November 2010, 02:57 PM	#52
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by 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... No, he's just saying that twoofers are nuts and flakes and not working in the interest of "truth" as defined as "reality."
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 02:59 PM	#53
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by leftysergeant 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..
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 10th November 2010 at 03:06 PM.

10th November 2010, 03:01 PM	#54
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Funny that a guy who's been talking about propaganda for years is now being used by the Iranian propaganda machine PressTV.

10th November 2010, 03:03 PM	#55
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by leftysergeant 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.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

10th November 2010, 03:14 PM	#56
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth 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 to support their claims (though it seems that just gets discarded when it's inconvenient).
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

10th November 2010, 03:15 PM	#57
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,944	Originally Posted by Feldspar 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?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

10th November 2010, 03:26 PM	#60
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	If anyone here fancies a one-on-one debate with Chomsky go ahead and contact him. That would be immense fun to witness.
	Last edited by plumjam; 10th November 2010 at 03:28 PM.

10th November 2010, 03:28 PM	#62
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by bill smith Obama's little speech ? lol
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

10th November 2010, 03:33 PM	#63
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	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.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

10th November 2010, 03:37 PM	#64
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,659	Originally Posted by 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. Explain the video in #49 then.

10th November 2010, 03:41 PM	#65
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,810	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus 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.

10th November 2010, 03:52 PM	#66
Feldspar New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus 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.
Feldspar New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 7

10th November 2010, 04:35 PM	#67
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osa...en_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?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 04:43 PM	#69
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	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.
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

10th November 2010, 04:45 PM	#71
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 04:50 PM	#73
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by leftysergeant 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.
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING... Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 10th November 2010 at 05:04 PM.

10th November 2010, 04:50 PM	#74
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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? Quote: 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.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

10th November 2010, 05:01 PM	#75
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by leftysergeant And who was his source? What credentials did he have? Here is a link to the original article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...498421,00.html AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source.
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

10th November 2010, 05:02 PM	#76
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by Dog Town Why let a lil thing like evidence bother you? I can ask you the same thing right?
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

10th November 2010, 05:14 PM	#78
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy Here is a link to the original article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...498421,00.html AFAIK, Spigel is a very credible German news source. Der Spiegel, yes. The reporter, I don't know.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 05:17 PM	#79
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th November 2010, 05:19 PM	#80
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy I can ask you the same thing right? Your claim and all...
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09