Alternative News. Activist Post, Alex Jones, And Others.

TheJoker · July 26, 2011, 8:09pm

Old_Gobbo:

Or,

"Duuhhhh… I’m old. Ok? I’m OLD. I’ve watched television, and and listened to the radio, and read like 26 books in my lifetime. I’ve worked the same job for like 40 years and I’m proud of that. I raised you on the credit thrown at my generation with televisions, gaming consoles, and other shiny devices. The cognitive gap between you, and me, when it comes to things like computers, and other concepts, is about the same as the chasm between everyday life and a person with Down’s Syndrome — and because of all that, I’m going to completely ignore anything you say that comes close to messing with the fragile, incredibly sad materialism-injected psychological cacoon I’ve built for myself with lectures on the dangers of the thing I know 1% of compared to you. In response to your involved, source-cited arguments, often times one, two, three hours long in video form I will use just ONE sentence: “I’m pretty old, and I’ve seen a lot in my lifetime, and believe me… if there was a conspiracy, someone would have come forward.”

So conspiracies, don’t happen? It’s all bullshit? There isn’t any groups out there that commit conspiracies against everybody else?

Stoic_Guardian · July 26, 2011, 10:03pm

Old_Gobbo:

Or,

"Duuhhhh… I’m old. Ok? I’m OLD. I’ve watched television, and and listened to the radio, and read like 26 books in my lifetime. I’ve worked the same job for like 40 years and I’m proud of that. I raised you on the credit thrown at my generation with televisions, gaming consoles, and other shiny devices. The cognitive gap between you, and me, when it comes to things like computers, and other concepts, is about the same as the chasm between everyday life and a person with Down’s Syndrome — and because of all that, I’m going to completely ignore anything you say that comes close to messing with the fragile, incredibly sad materialism-injected psychological cacoon I’ve built for myself with lectures on the dangers of the thing I know 1% of compared to you. In response to your involved, source-cited arguments, often times one, two, three hours long in video form I will use just ONE sentence: “I’m pretty old, and I’ve seen a lot in my lifetime, and believe me… if there was a conspiracy, someone would have come forward.”

Magnific’

TheJoker · July 29, 2011, 1:11am

Stoic Guardian:

Old_Gobbo:

Or,

"Duuhhhh… I’m old. Ok? I’m OLD. I’ve watched television, and and listened to the radio, and read like 26 books in my lifetime. I’ve worked the same job for like 40 years and I’m proud of that. I raised you on the credit thrown at my generation with televisions, gaming consoles, and other shiny devices. The cognitive gap between you, and me, when it comes to things like computers, and other concepts, is about the same as the chasm between everyday life and a person with Down’s Syndrome — and because of all that, I’m going to completely ignore anything you say that comes close to messing with the fragile, incredibly sad materialism-injected psychological cacoon I’ve built for myself with lectures on the dangers of the thing I know 1% of compared to you. In response to your involved, source-cited arguments, often times one, two, three hours long in video form I will use just ONE sentence: “I’m pretty old, and I’ve seen a lot in my lifetime, and believe me… if there was a conspiracy, someone would have come forward.”

Magnific’

Did I miss somthing? I have been known to not catch on other people’s humor.

TheJoker · July 29, 2011, 1:13am

Adapting to an unconventional war, the United States and its allies picked up some new tactics in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the past few years, drone attacks and night raids have become staples of the effort to combat al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The announcement of a new counterterrorism strategy and the beginning of troop withdrawals from the conflict suggest that these methods are poised to become fixtures of how the U.S. combats global terrorist threats.

These measures demonstrate an ability to adapt procedure to difficult realities. But the United States continues to fail in its efforts to create a concrete strategy to end the war in Afghanistan. Its use of these questionable tactics does as much to lose the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world as the more offensive tactics of pitched battles and indiscriminate application of force.

The Counterproductivity of Drones

The use of drones is changing the face of warfare. Most noticeably, their use does not require an air force to send its men into the line of fire. Both U.S. Air Force and British pilots fly missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the British assert that they have not done so in Pakistan) from the safety of Creech Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada. The tempo of strikes has only increased under the Obama administration. Currently, there is a U.S. drone assault in Pakistan approximately every four days.

Despite its protection of coalition forces, the tactic is particularly devastating: 88 people were killed in drone strikes in June 2011 alone and an astounding 52 people were killed recently in a mere 24-hour period. Numbers like these, with absolutely zero American casualties, make drones a public relations success. It allows effective attacks to be carried out in areas difficult for soldiers to reach, such as the tribal areas of Pakistan that are alleged to be one of the launching points for insurgency activity.

Debate swirls around whether or not the use of predator and reaper drones, as well as many other robotic technologies, is a good omen for the future of mankind. There is a real fear that the gradual removal of human involvement will lower the inhibition to begin future conflicts because of the reduction of human and political risks associated with combat. If the revelation of U.S. drone strikes in other parts of the world, particularly Somalia, is any indicator, this is a cause for growing concern.

More importantly, the use of drones is counterproductive. Though they are capable of inflicting a lot of damage, drones effectively translate into political suicide. Covert drone programs not only operate in violation of international law, but their lack of precision means that approximately 15-20 percent of those killed in drone attacks are non-combatants. The killing of innocents causes the sort of “collateral damage” that costs the United States and its allies the hearts and minds of the local population. It is not surprising that those who face the sudden trauma of losing relatives and homes ascribe blame to those responsible and join those who fight them. “While violent extremists may be unpopular,” write David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum in The New York Times, “for a frightened population they seem less ominous than a faceless enemy that wages war from afar and often kills more civilians than militants.”

Considering these major drawbacks in the use of drone strikes, the pay-off is not high enough. Few of these missions are truly successful. Along with the aforementioned civilian deaths, drone strikes mostly kill nameless and easily replaced low-level militants rather than insurgency leadership. Only one in every seven attacks in Pakistan results in the death of a militant leader.

The Problem with Night Raids

Though real soldiers on the ground carry out night raids, far fewer men are required than in traditional warfare. Based on intelligence and tip-offs, JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) troops accompanied by Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) infiltrate private residences throughout the country in search of enemy militants. The military establishment cites these night raids as indispensible tools in the effort to slow down the insurgency. It claims that, as of May 2011, the target is either killed or captured 50-60 percent of the time despite the fact that 80 percent of raids are conducted without a single gun fired. Reliance on this tactic as part of the kill/capture program has risen to the point where coalition forces conduct approximately 300 night raids each month.

Not conveyed in these numbers is that night raids come with a major psychological, human, and political price tag that cannot be ignored. Devastating as these attacks might be to the Taliban as it forces them to operate in smaller cells and in smaller spaces, the raids are now the number one grievance of the Afghan population. Locals and the U.S. military clearly have very different views of these night raids.

Afghans, for instance, insist that night raids have been accompanied by excessive use of force. They claim both physical and mental abuse from forced-entries and harsh interrogation. Property damage is often left unaccounted for. Bad intelligence influenced by personal grudges can often skew the process that determines which homes to raid. Further, these home invasions are an affront to Afghan culture. Attempts to clear up these transgressions date back to December 2010, when the top brass implemented rules that required ANSF personnel to accompany foreigners, to engage in a “soft knock” policy that would alert inhabitants of a raid rather than bombing open the front door, permitting only female units to interrogate women, and taking account of property damages for compensation. These changes have been mostly in theory, not in practice.

Like drone strikes, night raids are counterproductive. They may be effective tools for disrupting the Taliban, but they come at the price of losing the population and feeding the insurgency with droves of new recruits. Frustration with the number of civilians victimized and cultural trademarks trampled on has spilled over into anti-American sentiment. Episodes like the rally in Khost in July 13, 2011 protesting the 15 percent rise in civilian deaths in 2011 thus far show that this tactic serves to incite criticism of foreign involvement, deepen disillusionment with the Afghan National Government, and encourage people to join movements against them. As Mohammad Daudzai, Chief of Staff for Afghan President Hamid Karzai put it:

You have a village, has a very peaceful life, and then in the middle of the night, people come and surround the village and search a few houses and take a few prisoners, and in that scuffle a few of them are killed; women are disgraced. The next day, what do you expect? The entire village youth becomes Taliban.

The military is reluctant to give up on tactics that seem to be effective and economic uses of force. But in light of the real effects of drone strikes and night raids, the military has to stop them. On a human level, these raids serve to increase insecurity, destroy families, and trample on cultural norms. On a political level, the very groups the attacks intend to deter simply grow in strength and popularity.

These tactics may be deadly and serve to limit the number of foreign troops needed for attacks, but they are strategic failures. If the coalition’s primary goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to isolate and neutralize the influence of the insurgency and bolster the legitimacy of the local government, tactics that illicit fear of the government and drive people to shoulder up to the Taliban for protection against foreign attacks are clearly steps in the wrong direction.

fpif.org/articles/the_dual_f … and_drones

Moreno · July 29, 2011, 1:19am

of course there are conspiracies, everyone believes in them. Or did you think 9/11 was caused by pilot error? 2) people do come forward, which you would know if you did some research.

Gobbo · July 29, 2011, 1:19am

TheJoker:

Stoic Guardian:

Old_Gobbo:

Or,

"Duuhhhh… I’m old. Ok? I’m OLD. I’ve watched television, and and listened to the radio, and read like 26 books in my lifetime. I’ve worked the same job for like 40 years and I’m proud of that. I raised you on the credit thrown at my generation with televisions, gaming consoles, and other shiny devices. The cognitive gap between you, and me, when it comes to things like computers, and other concepts, is about the same as the chasm between everyday life and a person with Down’s Syndrome — and because of all that, I’m going to completely ignore anything you say that comes close to messing with the fragile, incredibly sad materialism-injected psychological cacoon I’ve built for myself with lectures on the dangers of the thing I know 1% of compared to you. In response to your involved, source-cited arguments, often times one, two, three hours long in video form I will use just ONE sentence: “I’m pretty old, and I’ve seen a lot in my lifetime, and believe me… if there was a conspiracy, someone would have come forward.”

Magnific’

Did I miss somthing? I have been known to not catch on other people’s humor.

Yes, my friend, I’m afraid you did. For I am not 40 years old.

TheJoker · July 30, 2011, 8:16pm

Not quite sure if I understand that reference of your sentence when it concerns being fourty years old.

TheJoker · July 30, 2011, 8:17pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK6K-7rTrio[/youtube]

Abstract · July 30, 2011, 9:34pm

Keep it up I find it interesting.

Abstract · July 30, 2011, 11:19pm

If conspiracies don’t happen then where did the word come from?
Surely they are rare, all the more unsuspected, all the more dangerous.
Let the conspirators ramble and we will maintain awareness, should they stop then surely the conspiracy is abound.

Let the government decry it enough, and let enough movies be put out making conspiracy theorists be shown wrong and seem silly and there comes the wave of the entertained thinking that conspiracies are silly…
Perhaps the more conspiracies there are and the more that think them silly the more likely at least one is true that is being hidden by dilution, supported by some entity?

Gobbo · July 31, 2011, 12:41am

Movies are put out in association with military/think tank social conditioning.

The ones about conspiracies theoriest are not a coincidence. They are intentionally put out to obfuscate the truth. Look at like every Oliver Stone movie ever made. People think he’s making controversial movies and nothing could be further from the truth. He’s working for them.

Most people at this point cannot differentiate between reading something online and seeing it in a movie.

Moreno · July 31, 2011, 1:32am

Ask a prosecutor who has spent time working on getting conspiracy convictions in organized crime if he or she has had trouble proving conspiracies took place that he or she is sure occurred. Conspiracies - generally on more modest levels then what get called conspiracy theories - happen all the time, our laws reflect this fact, and many cannot be proven to legal standards. To think that all high level conspiracies happened in the past - take for example the way JP Morgan and others shoved the US in WW1 for profit - but somehow ended recently bears the burden of proof.

Moreno · July 31, 2011, 1:34am

And here we have a conspiracy theory.

Abstract · July 31, 2011, 1:50am

Technically this makes sense with regards to the music used and also even the general music pervading America…
Drums became largely used primarily for use in marching and war…I would think that as a result there may actually be a degree of genetic memory if not simply social recognition of significant and particular forms of drumming being associative to war…And of course they are so often used in movies but also largely in music…like Heavy metal which is common to many soldiers…

Moreno · July 31, 2011, 2:02am

For me ‘conspiracy theory’ is a neutral term. It does not mean silly or wrong. Otherwise the term is simply ridiculous. I was just pointing out it was a kind of conspiracy theory. Though it did have to do with films and not music.

Abstract · July 31, 2011, 3:17am

I was addressing you both…should have made a better attempt to be clear…

Fixed_Cross · July 31, 2011, 3:40am

Democracy only works when a people has a backbone. If the mind and the principles forged from it are looked down upon, and watching videos of people complaining is deemed the highest form of thinking, a society is not worth a representative government. It must be controlled from above, otherwise destruction is certain.

That tyranny guarantees profiteering is obvious, but in a nation of people without standards, everything is preferable to a representational government.

The ‘spirit of the people’ is no longer a western phenomenon - we are in a state of decay, and the few of us who are able to think realize that this is not our governments doing, but the results of not having to fight for anything. People, like all structural, tension-based entities, are in general not worth much to others if they are not forced to make an effort.

Philosophy has never had anything to do with the present, with the current political misery that is almost always occurring everywhere, but with ideas that may carve out cultures from coming centuries. In a generation of people who have been trained to not think about anything but the bliss of momentary indulgence, such activity is naturally considered useless.

Moreno · July 31, 2011, 3:43am

No problem. Another reaction I have to the use of the term

Conspiracy theory

as a perjorative is that so many of the people who use the term that way fell for the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory about WOMD in Iraq and on far less evidence than many CTheorists have for their theories. So an actual conspiracy - a CONSPIRACY to manipulate public support for a war (AS IF it had something to do with 9/11 and as if there was a real threat to Americans) by powerful members of the government - used an official conspiracy theory to get the job done.

When governments make up conspiracy theories they never seem to get this label.

And people go on an on speaking about conspiracy theories as if there were no conspiracies.

It’s bizarre.

They must think our law books are insane with so many kinds of crimes of conspiracy.

Gobbo · July 31, 2011, 3:47am

There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact. Sometimes people plan a conspiracy, and then they get caught. Most of the time they are not even trying to hide it because there is really no need to.

If you look at movies like Transformers, and other blatant social conditioning showers of propaganda and you see the entire thing is one symbiotic relationship with the US army, promoting their ideals about as obviously as possible, you don’t even need to look at the records to see the US government not only allowed them to use their stuff, but paid them a jesus stack of money to do it.

I’m sure if you were to ask Michael Bay, Stone, or whoever else outright, ‘hey, was this designed with the intention to steer the public towards some nationalistic morality?’ he would say ‘Of course. That’s not a conspiracy theory.’

Just like if you ask anyone outside of America ‘hey, was 9/11 an inside job?’ they would say ‘Yeah, of course, it’s an age-old geopolitical strategy being put to use yet again. What’s so surprising about that?’

If you take out pride a lot of these things become pretty common sense, obviously-a-psychopath-is-going-to-do-that type things. It’s only some conspiracy theory that you assert to others is impossible to solve (wtf? lol) when you’re too proud to admit that you got fucking fooled.

Moreno · July 31, 2011, 4:03am

Sure, just because something describes a conspiracy does not mean it happened. It’s just a very strange term.

It would be like calling who you believe thinks poorly

a Thinker.

Oh, he’s just another thinker.

We know there are conspiracies. So the term conspiracy theory HAS TO BE neutral. And yet it is used pejoratively. The fact that people who are taking the position of being the rational ones keep using a term utterly irrationally and do not seem to notice this should be a warning sign.

Sometimes people plan a conspiracy, and then they get caught. Most of the time they are not even trying to hide it because there is really no need to.

I agree in general, though to me JFK made one skeptical about governement and theories, whereas I absolutely agree with the problem of Bay movies, et al.