I do not accept the notion that 9/11 was an inside job CD false flag op by the illuminati or the powers that be or rogue elements inside the USG.
I do believe that we live in a world we we are all manipulated by media and PR and as such our thinking is informed by what we read and see.... more than what we experience first hand. I don't know that Sri Lanka exists... from first hand knowledge of being there... I accept it does based on what I have seen and read in media.
We also know that marketing and PR and so forth are all about us. We are targets of persuasion and in many cases... perhaps most we accept PR and marketing and all manner of official statements and so forth as factual... objective and without a motive. We know people and institutions "spin" to influence thinking... lawyers do it in court. We witnessed Yellow Cake and WMDs stories and Cowlin Powel with his vial of white powder at the UN. We are besiged by propaganda which masquerades as fact.
It's obvious that people and institutions with power and access to and control of media in some cases will use PR, propaganda, spin etc. to advance their goals, agenda or franchise. Why wouldn't they? Why would,. for example, the police force want there to be no crime or threats to property and safety? If that came to pass... there would be no need for the massive police forces we see today. Same for the military. If all nations were at peace... why would we need a military? Military needs enemies, tangible security threats and the fear that people feel to maintain their franchise in society.
We also know that our economy is a capitalist one which is about wealth creation. Capitalism exploits resources and labor and (manipulates) markets (supply and demand) to aggregate wealth to what we call the 1%. Most people work to make ends meet... some to have some luxury and everyone accepts how "the game is played". When marxist socialism arose in the USSR it was a threat to the capitalist system of it spread to the capitalist countries.
This youtube
http://ift.tt/14PxRC6
touches on this and relates it to world events over the past 100 yrs... and especially to the assassination of JFK and even 9/11... alleging that they were "conspiracies" by very rich and powerful to aggregate power and control the world essentially.
I sat thru this long video. I found it very interesting and of course I can't prove or disprove what it alleges is what has gone down.
What has interested me in this large discussion about "conspiracies" is that they are often asserted to be "false flags" massive deceptions. Yet... the actions of the west around the world, militarism, occupation, exploitation of raw materials for the capitalist economy and corporations and their owners... in what is largely called "hegemony" would seem to create a natural response from those exploited, and oppressed, who are displaced, whose land is occupied, whose resources are stolen, who are turned into wage slaves or even slaves, who are manipulated to fight wars by external powers.
As such... I find that 9/11 makes "sense" as blowback... Western policies and activities created the response we call 9/11. It was a push back.. a sort of insurrection by the oppressed... It was the people who the powers that be identified as a threat.. an enemy.. because they MADE them into one.... which conspired to do 9/11. Isn't rebellion and push back or blow back inevitable at some point? How much oppression can anyone or group take?
The oppressed have no platform to have their grievances addressed and for their to be justice. The world is played out like law of the jungle... eat or be eaten... the strongest survive... and grow stronger... in the control of property and wealth and resources and so on.
I think the Rich Man's Trick raises many valid points... but it also goes off the rails as well.
It surprises me that CT people want to make 911 an inside job when blowback, insurrection, rebellion is a natural predictable outcome of the policies of the West. It was almost predictable.. perhaps not precisely where, when and how... but that it was inevitable. The military DOES accept the notion of insurrection, asymetrical warfare and so on.
Insurgency
"An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents.[1] An insurgency can be fought via counter-insurgency warfare, and may also be opposed by measures to protect the population, and by political and economic actions of various kinds aimed at undermining the insurgents' claims against the incumbent regime.[2] The nature of insurgencies is an ambiguous concept.
Not all rebellions are insurgencies. There have been many cases of non-violent rebellions, using civil resistance, as in the People Power Revolution in the Philippines in the 1980s that ousted President Marcos and the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.[3] Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces. For example, during the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America was not recognized as a sovereign state, but it was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[4][5][6]
When insurgency is used to describe a movement's unlawfulness by virtue of not being authorized by or in accordance with the law of the land, its use is neutral. However when it is used by a state or another authority under threat, "insurgency" often also carries an implication that the rebels' cause is illegitimate, whereas those rising up will see the authority itself as being illegitimate. Criticisms of widely held ideas and actions about insurgency started to occur in works of the 1960s;[7] they are still common in recent studies.[8]"
War and oppression has become a self fulfilling prophesy... and a means to make fortunes and amass power and control. It seems that this is more on auto pilot than conspiracists want to believe. IE terrorism is synthetic and created literally intentionally not as a response to hegemony.
It seems more plausible to CTers that 9/11 was an inside job than a bunch of suicidal people who got lucky and gave us a lesson in physics and killed thousands of people in the process of "striking back".
What say you?
I do believe that we live in a world we we are all manipulated by media and PR and as such our thinking is informed by what we read and see.... more than what we experience first hand. I don't know that Sri Lanka exists... from first hand knowledge of being there... I accept it does based on what I have seen and read in media.
We also know that marketing and PR and so forth are all about us. We are targets of persuasion and in many cases... perhaps most we accept PR and marketing and all manner of official statements and so forth as factual... objective and without a motive. We know people and institutions "spin" to influence thinking... lawyers do it in court. We witnessed Yellow Cake and WMDs stories and Cowlin Powel with his vial of white powder at the UN. We are besiged by propaganda which masquerades as fact.
It's obvious that people and institutions with power and access to and control of media in some cases will use PR, propaganda, spin etc. to advance their goals, agenda or franchise. Why wouldn't they? Why would,. for example, the police force want there to be no crime or threats to property and safety? If that came to pass... there would be no need for the massive police forces we see today. Same for the military. If all nations were at peace... why would we need a military? Military needs enemies, tangible security threats and the fear that people feel to maintain their franchise in society.
We also know that our economy is a capitalist one which is about wealth creation. Capitalism exploits resources and labor and (manipulates) markets (supply and demand) to aggregate wealth to what we call the 1%. Most people work to make ends meet... some to have some luxury and everyone accepts how "the game is played". When marxist socialism arose in the USSR it was a threat to the capitalist system of it spread to the capitalist countries.
This youtube
http://ift.tt/14PxRC6
touches on this and relates it to world events over the past 100 yrs... and especially to the assassination of JFK and even 9/11... alleging that they were "conspiracies" by very rich and powerful to aggregate power and control the world essentially.
I sat thru this long video. I found it very interesting and of course I can't prove or disprove what it alleges is what has gone down.
What has interested me in this large discussion about "conspiracies" is that they are often asserted to be "false flags" massive deceptions. Yet... the actions of the west around the world, militarism, occupation, exploitation of raw materials for the capitalist economy and corporations and their owners... in what is largely called "hegemony" would seem to create a natural response from those exploited, and oppressed, who are displaced, whose land is occupied, whose resources are stolen, who are turned into wage slaves or even slaves, who are manipulated to fight wars by external powers.
As such... I find that 9/11 makes "sense" as blowback... Western policies and activities created the response we call 9/11. It was a push back.. a sort of insurrection by the oppressed... It was the people who the powers that be identified as a threat.. an enemy.. because they MADE them into one.... which conspired to do 9/11. Isn't rebellion and push back or blow back inevitable at some point? How much oppression can anyone or group take?
The oppressed have no platform to have their grievances addressed and for their to be justice. The world is played out like law of the jungle... eat or be eaten... the strongest survive... and grow stronger... in the control of property and wealth and resources and so on.
I think the Rich Man's Trick raises many valid points... but it also goes off the rails as well.
It surprises me that CT people want to make 911 an inside job when blowback, insurrection, rebellion is a natural predictable outcome of the policies of the West. It was almost predictable.. perhaps not precisely where, when and how... but that it was inevitable. The military DOES accept the notion of insurrection, asymetrical warfare and so on.
Insurgency
"An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents.[1] An insurgency can be fought via counter-insurgency warfare, and may also be opposed by measures to protect the population, and by political and economic actions of various kinds aimed at undermining the insurgents' claims against the incumbent regime.[2] The nature of insurgencies is an ambiguous concept.
Not all rebellions are insurgencies. There have been many cases of non-violent rebellions, using civil resistance, as in the People Power Revolution in the Philippines in the 1980s that ousted President Marcos and the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.[3] Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces. For example, during the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America was not recognized as a sovereign state, but it was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[4][5][6]
When insurgency is used to describe a movement's unlawfulness by virtue of not being authorized by or in accordance with the law of the land, its use is neutral. However when it is used by a state or another authority under threat, "insurgency" often also carries an implication that the rebels' cause is illegitimate, whereas those rising up will see the authority itself as being illegitimate. Criticisms of widely held ideas and actions about insurgency started to occur in works of the 1960s;[7] they are still common in recent studies.[8]"
War and oppression has become a self fulfilling prophesy... and a means to make fortunes and amass power and control. It seems that this is more on auto pilot than conspiracists want to believe. IE terrorism is synthetic and created literally intentionally not as a response to hegemony.
It seems more plausible to CTers that 9/11 was an inside job than a bunch of suicidal people who got lucky and gave us a lesson in physics and killed thousands of people in the process of "striking back".
What say you?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1DecVTM
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire