100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Charade of Israeli-Palestinian Talks | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Like I said Mr Chomsky's honest and accurate observations drive the propagandists mad. 
Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist who was a pioneer in generative grammar. Later he became an extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier. He advocates holding America to an absolute standard of ethics in foreign relations, but has not held such a standard elsewhere. He tends to ignore such violations by other countries, even when they have been far worse. Fellow liberal academic, Arthur Schlesinger, once referred to Chomsky as "an intellectual crook." He is an institute professor & professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) . Chomsky is very critical of American and Israeli foreign policy, sympathizes with Palestinians and has shown support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He has also been criticized for anti-Semitism, despite having come from a Jewish family and having once spoken and written Hebrew. Anti-Semitism Chomsky has been accused of anti-Semitism. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control". Chomsky has supported controversial author Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain. Noam Chomsky has also supported the right of Holocaust deniers, among them the notorious Robert Faurisson, to express their views. Chomsky has claimed he sees this as a free-speech issue and does not himself support Holocaust deniers. Chomsky's Criticisms of the West Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the United States foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are: 1. The overthrow of democratic and secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK) 2. The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 3. The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973 4. The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s 5. The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in El Salvador during the same time period 6. Selling weapons to a terror-state (Iran) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). 7. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. 8. Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 9. Invading Iraq in 2003 despite lack of support from the UN 10. Blatant Support of Israel which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish ethnicity http://www.conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said Mr Chomsky's honest and accurate observations drive the propagandists mad.
Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist who was a pioneer in generative grammar. Later he became an extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier. He advocates holding America to an absolute standard of ethics in foreign relations, but has not held such a standard elsewhere. He tends to ignore such violations by other countries, even when they have been far worse. Fellow liberal academic, Arthur Schlesinger, once referred to Chomsky as "an intellectual crook." He is an institute professor & professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) . Chomsky is very critical of American and Israeli foreign policy, sympathizes with Palestinians and has shown support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He has also been criticized for anti-Semitism, despite having come from a Jewish family and having once spoken and written Hebrew. Anti-Semitism Chomsky has been accused of anti-Semitism. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control". Chomsky has supported controversial author Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain. Noam Chomsky has also supported the right of Holocaust deniers, among them the notorious Robert Faurisson, to express their views. Chomsky has claimed he sees this as a free-speech issue and does not himself support Holocaust deniers. Chomsky's Criticisms of the West Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the United States foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are: 1. The overthrow of democratic and secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK) 2. The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 3. The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973 4. The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s 5. The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in El Salvador during the same time period 6. Selling weapons to a terror-state (Iran) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). 7. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. 8. Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 9. Invading Iraq in 2003 despite lack of support from the UN 10. Blatant Support of Israel which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish ethnicity http://www.conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky
Fabulous, isn't it darling... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said Mr Chomsky's honest and accurate observations drive the propagandists mad.
Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist who was a pioneer in generative grammar. Later he became an extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier. He advocates holding America to an absolute standard of ethics in foreign relations, but has not held such a standard elsewhere. He tends to ignore such violations by other countries, even when they have been far worse. Fellow liberal academic, Arthur Schlesinger, once referred to Chomsky as "an intellectual crook." He is an institute professor & professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) . Chomsky is very critical of American and Israeli foreign policy, sympathizes with Palestinians and has shown support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He has also been criticized for anti-Semitism, despite having come from a Jewish family and having once spoken and written Hebrew. Anti-Semitism Chomsky has been accused of anti-Semitism. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control". Chomsky has supported controversial author Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain. Noam Chomsky has also supported the right of Holocaust deniers, among them the notorious Robert Faurisson, to express their views. Chomsky has claimed he sees this as a free-speech issue and does not himself support Holocaust deniers. Chomsky's Criticisms of the West Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the United States foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are: 1. The overthrow of democratic and secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK) 2. The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 3. The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973 4. The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s 5. The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in El Salvador during the same time period 6. Selling weapons to a terror-state (Iran) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). 7. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. 8. Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 9. Invading Iraq in 2003 despite lack of support from the UN 10. Blatant Support of Israel which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish ethnicity http://www.conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky
Fabulous, isn't it darling...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Sat 08/18/12 02:31 PM
|
|
Like I said Mr Chomsky's honest and accurate observations drive the propagandists mad.
Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist who was a pioneer in generative grammar. Later he became an extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier. He advocates holding America to an absolute standard of ethics in foreign relations, but has not held such a standard elsewhere. He tends to ignore such violations by other countries, even when they have been far worse. Fellow liberal academic, Arthur Schlesinger, once referred to Chomsky as "an intellectual crook." He is an institute professor & professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) . Chomsky is very critical of American and Israeli foreign policy, sympathizes with Palestinians and has shown support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He has also been criticized for anti-Semitism, despite having come from a Jewish family and having once spoken and written Hebrew. Anti-Semitism Chomsky has been accused of anti-Semitism. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control". Chomsky has supported controversial author Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain. Noam Chomsky has also supported the right of Holocaust deniers, among them the notorious Robert Faurisson, to express their views. Chomsky has claimed he sees this as a free-speech issue and does not himself support Holocaust deniers. Chomsky's Criticisms of the West Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the United States foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are: 1. The overthrow of democratic and secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK) 2. The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 3. The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973 4. The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s 5. The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in El Salvador during the same time period 6. Selling weapons to a terror-state (Iran) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). 7. Supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. 8. Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 9. Invading Iraq in 2003 despite lack of support from the UN 10. Blatant Support of Israel which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish ethnicity http://www.conservapedia.com/Noam_Chomsky
Fabulous, isn't it darling...
Really?... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then, I also asked if you (or anyone) had any evidence or proof that 16 (or any number) of highjackers boarded those planes on 9-11 and flew them into the twin towers. There simply is no substantial proof they (or anyone) even boarded those planes, and no proof at all that Osama Bin Laden has anything whatsoever to do with it. And yet somehow the media and the government managed to convince a large population that this is an established fact. I find that astonishing. and what was your reply? You asked me to prove that it was NOT true. It's not true. Prove that it is first. It has never been proven. One does not accept, as fact, something just because it is told over the media by an authority of the government. Prove it. Well, I'm not the one positing outrageous and risible theories. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with those individuals who do, and they've never 'proved' anything to the satisfaction of those capable of critical thinking. There is no need to prove something is "NOT TRUE" when there has never been any evidence or proof that it is. Mere sophist rhetoric. The burden of proof still stands and if one posits a theory about an event, it requires proof, and as I stated above, 'they've never 'proved' anything to those capable of critical thinking.' If someone tells me a spaceship attacked the WTC (hypothetically), I want proof, or I back away and hope that individual has taken the prescribed medication. You are absolutely right. The burden of prood still stands and it rests on any theory about an event. The official government theory is the only one I am concerned with. There is no proof. They have no proof that ANYONE at all boarded those planes. They do not have an authentic passenger list, and any passenger list they claim to have did not follow the standard rules of evidence. Also, the list of names kept changing. They do not have any videos or pictures of anyone AT ALL even passengers, boarding those planes. They have no proof at all for their theory. Therefore, it cannot be believed. I do not need proof of my "theory" because I don't have a theory. The 9=11 commission and the official government reports are the ones with the theory. Where is their proof??? They have NONE!! Why do you keep insisting that the burden of proof is on me? Discussing anything with you is so laborious. If one posits a theory it requires proof, whether you believe the OS or not is irrelevant. If you tell me that misslies were used, or that the planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda, the burden of proof lies with you. It is not my responsibility to prove the OS, for I'm not the one positing a theory. Get it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 08/18/12 06:01 PM
|
|
But then, I also asked if you (or anyone) had any evidence or proof that 16 (or any number) of highjackers boarded those planes on 9-11 and flew them into the twin towers. There simply is no substantial proof they (or anyone) even boarded those planes, and no proof at all that Osama Bin Laden has anything whatsoever to do with it. And yet somehow the media and the government managed to convince a large population that this is an established fact. I find that astonishing. and what was your reply? You asked me to prove that it was NOT true. It's not true. Prove that it is first. It has never been proven. One does not accept, as fact, something just because it is told over the media by an authority of the government. Prove it. Well, I'm not the one positing outrageous and risible theories. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with those individuals who do, and they've never 'proved' anything to the satisfaction of those capable of critical thinking. There is no need to prove something is "NOT TRUE" when there has never been any evidence or proof that it is. Mere sophist rhetoric. The burden of proof still stands and if one posits a theory about an event, it requires proof, and as I stated above, 'they've never 'proved' anything to those capable of critical thinking.' If someone tells me a spaceship attacked the WTC (hypothetically), I want proof, or I back away and hope that individual has taken the prescribed medication. You are absolutely right. The burden of prood still stands and it rests on any theory about an event. The official government theory is the only one I am concerned with. There is no proof. They have no proof that ANYONE at all boarded those planes. They do not have an authentic passenger list, and any passenger list they claim to have did not follow the standard rules of evidence. Also, the list of names kept changing. They do not have any videos or pictures of anyone AT ALL even passengers, boarding those planes. They have no proof at all for their theory. Therefore, it cannot be believed. I do not need proof of my "theory" because I don't have a theory. The 9=11 commission and the official government reports are the ones with the theory. Where is their proof??? They have NONE!! Why do you keep insisting that the burden of proof is on me? Discussing anything with you is so laborious. If one posits a theory it requires proof, whether you believe the OS or not is irrelevant. If you tell me that misslies were used, or that the planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda, the burden of proof lies with you. It is not my responsibility to prove the OS, for I'm not the one positing a theory. Get it? I am NOT telling you that missiles were used or that planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda. I am telling you that the official conspiracy theory hatched by the government and the 9-11 commission HAS NO PROOF of anything that they claim. THE CLAIMS ARE THEIRS, AND THE BURDON OF PROOF IS THEIRS. They have no proof. The burden of proof lies with THEM BECAUSE they are the ones making the claims that the planes were hijacked by 16 members of "Al-Qaeda." I don't expect you to prove the official story. (You couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I don't expect you could even come close.) What I expect is, if you believe the official story, then you must have some logical or good reason other than blind faith. If you believe the OS, then why do you believe it? Do you believe that they have proof? If you believe that, then tell me what proof you think it is that they have. Or perhaps you just don't want to question their authority and you are just trusting that they are telling the truth. Have you spent much time researching the Official story? Do you know it changed after two years? Do you know that the list of passengers supposedly on the planes changed? Do you know that two of the plane numbers which are issued to them when they are created were not recorded as destroyed and went back into service? I bet there are a lot of things you don't know. And yet you want to place the burden of proof on me for saying I disagree with the Official story. When and if they ever actually prove their ridiculous story with credible evidence for their claims that would stand up in court, if I still disagree with their story, then and only then would I seek any proof to discredit their claims. Until then, the burden of proof is on them to prove their theory of what happened on 9-11. They have not done that yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then, I also asked if you (or anyone) had any evidence or proof that 16 (or any number) of highjackers boarded those planes on 9-11 and flew them into the twin towers. There simply is no substantial proof they (or anyone) even boarded those planes, and no proof at all that Osama Bin Laden has anything whatsoever to do with it. And yet somehow the media and the government managed to convince a large population that this is an established fact. I find that astonishing. and what was your reply? You asked me to prove that it was NOT true. It's not true. Prove that it is first. It has never been proven. One does not accept, as fact, something just because it is told over the media by an authority of the government. Prove it. Well, I'm not the one positing outrageous and risible theories. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with those individuals who do, and they've never 'proved' anything to the satisfaction of those capable of critical thinking. There is no need to prove something is "NOT TRUE" when there has never been any evidence or proof that it is. Mere sophist rhetoric. The burden of proof still stands and if one posits a theory about an event, it requires proof, and as I stated above, 'they've never 'proved' anything to those capable of critical thinking.' If someone tells me a spaceship attacked the WTC (hypothetically), I want proof, or I back away and hope that individual has taken the prescribed medication. You are absolutely right. The burden of prood still stands and it rests on any theory about an event. The official government theory is the only one I am concerned with. There is no proof. They have no proof that ANYONE at all boarded those planes. They do not have an authentic passenger list, and any passenger list they claim to have did not follow the standard rules of evidence. Also, the list of names kept changing. They do not have any videos or pictures of anyone AT ALL even passengers, boarding those planes. They have no proof at all for their theory. Therefore, it cannot be believed. I do not need proof of my "theory" because I don't have a theory. The 9=11 commission and the official government reports are the ones with the theory. Where is their proof??? They have NONE!! Why do you keep insisting that the burden of proof is on me? Discussing anything with you is so laborious. If one posits a theory it requires proof, whether you believe the OS or not is irrelevant. If you tell me that misslies were used, or that the planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda, the burden of proof lies with you. It is not my responsibility to prove the OS, for I'm not the one positing a theory. Get it? I am NOT telling you that missiles were used or that planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda. I am telling you that the official conspiracy theory hatched by the government and the 9-11 commission HAS NO PROOF of anything that they claim. THE CLAIMS ARE THEIRS, AND THE BURDON OF PROOF IS THEIRS. They have no proof. The burden of proof lies with THEM BECAUSE they are the ones making the claims that the planes were hijacked by 16 members of "Al-Qaeda." I don't expect you to prove the official story. (You couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I don't expect you could even come close.) What I expect is, if you believe the official story, then you must have some logical or good reason other than blind faith. If you believe the OS, then why do you believe it? Do you believe that they have proof? If you believe that, then tell me what proof you think it is that they have. Or perhaps you just don't want to question their authority and you are just trusting that they are telling the truth. Have you spent much time researching the Official story? Do you know it changed after two years? Do you know that the list of passengers supposedly on the planes changed? Do you know that two of the plane numbers which are issued to them when they are created were not recorded as destroyed and went back into service? I bet there are a lot of things you don't know. And yet you want to place the burden of proof on me for saying I disagree with the Official story. When and if they ever actually prove their ridiculous story with credible evidence for their claims that would stand up in court, if I still disagree with their story, then and only then would I seek any proof to discredit their claims. Until then, the burden of proof is on them to prove their theory of what happened on 9-11. They have not done that yet. Uhhhhh, plane numbers are issued til the plane is "out of service" then they are reissued to anyone who wants them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh right..... if you say so.
But did anyone bother to check the ICAO number on those planes? If so or if not, I did not see that in their report. The special identification number is assigned to every registered airplane. The number is sometimes called the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) number, or can be labeled the Mode S number. The reason it is called the ICAO identification is because unlike the registration (N number) it is unique for the world, not just a single country. The eight-digit ICAO number is assigned to the airplane and the owner. The ICAO number is essentially invisible; it is like the VIN number on your car while the N number is the license plate. The authority that issues the N number or other registration number matches it with the ICAO number the same way the DMV has methods to make sure the VIN and license plate numbers match the records. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Sat 08/18/12 07:28 PM
|
|
Yeh right..... if you say so. But did anyone bother to check the ICAO number on those planes? If so or if not, I did not see that in their report. The special identification number is assigned to every registered airplane. The number is sometimes called the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) number, or can be labeled the Mode S number. The reason it is called the ICAO identification is because unlike the registration (N number) it is unique for the world, not just a single country. The eight-digit ICAO number is assigned to the airplane and the owner. The ICAO number is essentially invisible; it is like the VIN number on your car while the N number is the license plate. The authority that issues the N number or other registration number matches it with the ICAO number the same way the DMV has methods to make sure the VIN and license plate numbers match the records. That's the problem with trying to justify a position that you don't understand. The registration numbers for all aircraft are UNIQUE everywhere in the world. Mode S is the transponder (for airplanes that have Mode S transponders). The reason aircraft registration numbers all appear to start with "N" (sometimes called the N-number) is because the international identification symbol for the United States is "N". All other countries numbers start with a different letter.
And the FAA matches the registration number to the SERIAL number of the plane for identification purposes which is scribes on a metal plate on the tail of the aircraft. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 08/18/12 08:02 PM
|
|
Yeh right..... if you say so. But did anyone bother to check the ICAO number on those planes? If so or if not, I did not see that in their report. The special identification number is assigned to every registered airplane. The number is sometimes called the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) number, or can be labeled the Mode S number. The reason it is called the ICAO identification is because unlike the registration (N number) it is unique for the world, not just a single country. The eight-digit ICAO number is assigned to the airplane and the owner. The ICAO number is essentially invisible; it is like the VIN number on your car while the N number is the license plate. The authority that issues the N number or other registration number matches it with the ICAO number the same way the DMV has methods to make sure the VIN and license plate numbers match the records. That's the problem with trying to justify a position that you don't understand. The registration numbers for all aircraft are UNIQUE everywhere in the world. Mode S is the transponder (for airplanes that have Mode S transponders). The reason aircraft registration numbers all appear to start with "N" (sometimes called the N-number) is because the international identification symbol for the United States is "N". All other countries numbers start with a different letter.
And the FAA matches the registration number to the SERIAL number of the plane for identification purposes which is scribes on a metal plate on the tail of the aircraft. My point was, the articles I read did not mention anything about whether anyone actually checked or verified the unique ICAO number on those planes which had the numbers of the planes that were supposedly destroyed painted on them. You would think they would have checked that, and verified it and reported it in the article. (Reported whether or not those were different planes or the planes that were supposed to have been destroyed on 9-11.) Especially since the planes that were supposedly destroyed on 9-11 were not listed as "destroyed." Nope, as usual, news reporters just repeat like parrots what they hear and what the officials tell them. There is no investigative reporting anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 08/19/12 12:21 AM
|
|
I am NOT telling you that missiles were used or that planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda.
My examples were hypothetical.
I am telling you that the official conspiracy theory hatched by the government and the 9-11 commission HAS NO PROOF of anything that they claim.
Hence, the burden of proof lies with you. You say it is a conspiracy, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. THE CLAIMS ARE THEIRS, AND THE BURDON OF PROOF IS THEIRS. They have no proof.
Incorrect, it lies with you and your ilk if you dispute the OS. The burden of proof lies with THEM BECAUSE they are the ones making the claims that the planes were hijacked by 16 members of "Al-Qaeda."
See above. I don't expect you to prove the official story. (You couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I don't expect you could even come close.)
Irrelelvant. What I expect is, if you believe the official story, then you must have some logical or good reason other than blind faith.
If you believe the OS, then why do you believe it? Do you believe that they have proof? If you believe that, then tell me what proof you think it is that they have. As I have stated from the outset (please pay attention), the argument(s) against the OS are either logically or scientifically specious. Or perhaps you just don't want to question their authority and you are just trusting that they are telling the truth.
A ridiculous accusation. Have you spent much time researching the Official story?
Yes, and I examine it as objectively as possible. I avoid preconceived bias and prejudice. Do you know it changed after two years? Do you know that the list of passengers supposedly on the planes changed? Do you know that two of the plane numbers which are issued to them when they are created were not recorded as destroyed and went back into service?
And this has been explained on numerous occasions, yet you choose to dismiss it. I bet there are a lot of things you don't know.
I'm sure there are, and I know there is much you don't understand as well. Your point is? And yet you want to place the burden of proof on me for saying I disagree with the Official story.
Yes, as you have demonstrated, you don't appear to understand the concept. When and if they ever actually prove their ridiculous story with credible evidence for their claims that would stand up in court, if I still disagree with their story, then and only then would I seek any proof to discredit their claims.
Why would the government waste funding on proving the obvious to a group of people that wouldn't believe it anyway? Until then, the burden of proof is on them to prove their theory of what happened on 9-11. They have not done that yet.
Why should they? Just to satisfy people like you? What's the point? Why is this concept (burden of proof)so difficult for you to comprehend? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am NOT telling you that missiles were used or that planes were not hijacked by Al-Qaeda.
My examples were hypothetical.
I am telling you that the official conspiracy theory hatched by the government and the 9-11 commission HAS NO PROOF of anything that they claim.
Hence, the burden of proof lies with you. You say it is a conspiracy, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. THE CLAIMS ARE THEIRS, AND THE BURDON OF PROOF IS THEIRS. They have no proof.
Incorrect, it lies with you and your ilk if you dispute the OS. The burden of proof lies with THEM BECAUSE they are the ones making the claims that the planes were hijacked by 16 members of "Al-Qaeda."
See above. I don't expect you to prove the official story. (You couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I don't expect you could even come close.)
Irrelelvant. What I expect is, if you believe the official story, then you must have some logical or good reason other than blind faith.
If you believe the OS, then why do you believe it? Do you believe that they have proof? If you believe that, then tell me what proof you think it is that they have. As I have stated from the outset (please pay attention), the argument(s) against the OS are either logically or scientifically specious. Or perhaps you just don't want to question their authority and you are just trusting that they are telling the truth.
A ridiculous accusation. Have you spent much time researching the Official story?
Yes, and I examine it as objectively as possible. I avoid preconceived bias and prejudice. Do you know it changed after two years? Do you know that the list of passengers supposedly on the planes changed? Do you know that two of the plane numbers which are issued to them when they are created were not recorded as destroyed and went back into service?
And this has been explained on numerous occasions, yet you choose to dismiss it. I bet there are a lot of things you don't know.
I'm sure there are, and I know there is much you don't understand as well. Your point is? And yet you want to place the burden of proof on me for saying I disagree with the Official story.
Yes, as you have demonstrated, you don't appear to understand the concept. When and if they ever actually prove their ridiculous story with credible evidence for their claims that would stand up in court, if I still disagree with their story, then and only then would I seek any proof to discredit their claims.
Why would the government waste funding on proving the obvious to a group of people that wouldn't believe it anyway? Until then, the burden of proof is on them to prove their theory of what happened on 9-11. They have not done that yet.
Why should they? Just to satisfy people like you? What's the point? Why is this concept (burden of proof)so difficult for you to comprehend? Because it would place the burden of proof on her!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/19/12 10:03 AM
|
|
Hotrod, you have it completely backwards. They are the ones making the claims that 16 hijackers flew planes into the twin towers. They are the ones making the claims that Al-Qaeda was the mastermind behind 9-11 attack.
They have no proof of these claims. None at all. What you are doing is ASSUMING that their claims are true even though they have no evidence. They have not proven their claims. ALL THEY HAVE IS EITHER A BAD CONSPIRACY THEORY OR A BALD FACED LIE hatched to cover up the truth. But what they don't have is any proof and they don't have any credible evidence of their claims. The burden of proof is not mine. I am not making those claims, THEY ARE. The burden of proof is on them. They have not, and never will prove their claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should they prove their claims?
Apparently they don't need to because the dumbed down idiotic public is brainwashed to accept any propaganda they dish out and they are trained not to question the all mighty authority of government officials. Hence, they apparently can make any absurd claims they want with no proof at all to back them up and anyone who questions their all mighty word is looked at as a heretic to question the holy word of the official report. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/19/12 10:38 AM
|
|
Hotrod:
1. Your "examples" were not "hypothetical" they were assumptions. 2.T he burden of proof is theirs, not mine because they have made the claims. I did not say "its a conspiracy" I said that their official report of the events of 9-11 is a conspiracy THEORY. (OR else it is just a lie.) 3. You said: "It lies with my ilk." Seriously? Is that how you want to debate this subject with remarks like that? Why can't you discuss this subject in a respectful manner? You claim that the "burden of proof lies with me if I "dispute" the official Story." Correct? My only "dispute" at this point is a request to see the proof of their claims. I don't believe they have proof. Therefore, I am calling them out. I am asking them and anyone else who accepts the official story to show the proof. As I have stated from the outset (please pay attention), the argument(s) against the OS are either logically or scientifically specious.
Nice word, but you are wrong. spe·cious//Adjective: Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument". Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty". Okay please PAY ATTENTION. My so-called "argument" AT THIS POINT is simply that I want them to prove their claims. It cannot be "actually wrong." Or "misleading." It is VERY SPECIFIC AND SIMPLE. Your responses (rhetoric) do not mean anything. It is meaningless gobbldeegook. 4.QUESTION: Hotrod: Do you trust the government to tell you the truth? Do you believe the official report? You have avoided that question with your gibberish. And this has been explained on numerous occasions, yet you choose to dismiss it.
um... no it hasn't. I already KNOW WHY the official report was changed anyway. Do you? I doubt it. My point is not that it was changed, but that people believed the first one without questions, and then they believed the second one without questions.... People place their faith in the government to handle everything and they don't want to question the official report. They don't care, and they don't really pay attention. They think a person like me who questions the almighty government report are heretics, even blasphemous. "OMG she doesn't believe the official 9-11 report! She must be one of those wacked out conspiracy theory nut cases they are always talking about. " I want to make this very simple for you since you don't comprehend what I am saying. They have no proof of their claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 08/20/12 03:03 AM
|
|
Noam Chomsky the number 1 Israel hater of the world.
Made a career out of it. The charade of the Arab-Israeli talks is this: Arabs/Palestinians have no interest or willingness to actually accept peace with a Jewish state of Israel. Whenever they get autonomy as they now have in the West Bank and Gaza they misuse it to launch more terrorist attacks. This is the central reason why Pal/Arabs have been unable to advance economically, politically and as a vital society. They are unwilling to accept peace so they are unable to make peace. Has nothing to do with the US and our much needed support of the terrorized and abused Israelis who are simply trying to live peacefully next to this cesspool. Palestinian Arabs are caught in their own hell made of hatred, self-pity, terrorism and despair. When Palestinians put down their bombs and pick up their shovels there will be peace. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky I would take his word over any number of unnamed propagandists.
You only like the "named" propagandists?! Why would you take Chomsky's word on anything? He may be a cunning Linguist but he does not know squat about Israel.
Chomsky is an idiot who has made a career out of making controversial and inflammatory anti-Israel arguments as a method of shameless self-aggrandizement. I would not paper a rat's cage with some of his vehemently anti-Israeli writings. The rat deserves better.
Just because he was born to Jewish parents and somehow managed to get a faculty appointment at MIT does not impress me. What impresses me is excellent insight and fair analysis and Chomsky fails miserably on both counts at least in regard to Israel. Here is another guy who was "born Jewish"
"Rising star of Hungarian anti-Semitic party forced to resign after he discovers his Jewish heritage It emerged that Csanad Szegedi's grandfather was a forced labour camp veteran and that his grandmother was a survivor of Auschwitz" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rising-star-of-hungarian-antisemitic-party-forced-to-resign-after-he-discovers-his-jewish-heritage-8053216.html Maybe he and Chomsky can start a new Hungarian rat cage paper Party.
The fact is his observations are correct and honest and that of course infuriates the propagandists and zionist thugs. He has nothing to gain by anything he is a principled man and a man of honor. I find your contempt for him laughable and absurd. That is why they haven't fired him yet!
That and Freedom Of Speech which you all claim doesn't exist in the USA! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky Washington's pathetic capitulation to Israel while pleading for a meaningless three-month freeze on settlement expansion -- excluding Arab East Jerusalem -- should go down as one of the most humiliating moments in U.S. diplomatic history. In September the last settlement freeze ended, leading the Palestinians to cease direct talks with Israel. Now the Obama administration, desperate to lure Israel into a new freeze and thus revive the talks, is grasping at invisible straws -- and lavishing gifts on a far-right Israeli government. The gifts include $3 billion for fighter jets. The largesse also happens to be another taxpayer grant to the U.S. arms industry, which gains doubly from programs to expand the militarization of the Middle East. U.S. arms manufacturers are subsidized not only to develop and produce advanced equipment for a state that is virtually part of the U.S. military-intelligence establishment but also to provide second-rate military equipment to the Gulf states -- currently a precedent-breaking $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, which is a transaction that also recycles petrodollars to an ailing U.S. economy. Israeli and U.S. high-tech civilian industries are closely integrated. It is small wonder that the most fervent support for Israeli actions comes from the business press and the Republican Party, the more extreme of the two business-oriented political parties. The pretext for the huge arms sales to Saudi Arabia is defense against the "Iranian threat." However, the Iranian threat is not military, as the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence have emphasized. Were Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, the purpose would be deterrent -- presumably to ward off a U.S.-Israeli attack. The real threat, in Washington's view, is that Iran is seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries "stabilized" by U.S. invasion and occupation. The official line is that the Arab states are pleading for U.S. military aid to defend themselves against Iran. True or false, the claim provides interesting insight into the reigning concept of democracy. Whatever the ruling dictatorships may prefer, Arabs in a recent Brookings poll rank the major threats to the region as Israel (88 percent), the United States (77 percent) and Iran (10 percent). It is interesting that U.S. officials, as revealed in the just-released WikiLeaks cables, totally ignored Arab public opinion, keeping to the views of the reigning dictators. The U.S. gifts to Israel also include diplomatic support, according to current reports. Washington pledges to veto any U.N. Security Council actions that might annoy Israel's leaders and to drop any call for further extension of a settlement freeze. Hence, by agreeing to the three-month pause, Israel will no longer be disturbed by the paymaster as it expands its criminal actions in the occupied territories. That these actions are criminal has not been in doubt since late 1967, when Israel's leading legal authority, international jurist Theodor Meron, advised the government that its plans to initiate settlements in the occupied territories violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, a core principle of international humanitarian law, established in 1949 to criminalize the horrors of the Nazi regime. Meron's conclusion was endorsed by Justice Minister Ya'akov Shimson Shapira, and shortly after by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, writes historian Gershom Gorenberg in "The Accidental Empire." Dayan informed his fellow ministers, "We must consolidate our hold so that over time we will succeed in 'digesting' Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and merging them with 'little' Israel," meanwhile "dismember(ing) the territorial contiguity" of the West Bank, all under the usual pretense "that the step is necessary for military purposes." Dayan had no doubts, or qualms, about what he was recommending: "Settling Israelis in occupied territory contravenes, as is known, international conventions," he observed. "But there is nothing essentially new in that." Dayan's correct assumption was that the boss in Washington might object formally, but with a wink, and would continue to provide the decisive military, economic and diplomatic support for the criminal endeavors. The criminality has been underscored by repeated Security Council resolutions, more recently by the International Court of Justice, with the basic agreement of U.S. Justice Thomas Buergenthal in a separate declaration. Israel's actions also violate U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem. But everything is fine as long as Washington winks. Back in Washington, the Republican super-hawks are even more fervent in their support for Israeli crimes. Eric Cantor, the new majority leader in the House of Representatives, "has floated a novel solution to protect aid for Israel from the current foreign aid backlash," Glenn Kessler reports in The Washington Post: "giving the Jewish state its own funding account, thus removing it from funds for the rest of the world." The issue of settlement expansion is simply a diversion. The real issue is the existence of the settlements and related infrastructure developments. These have been carefully designed so that Israel has already taken over more than 40 percent of the occupied West Bank, including suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; the arable land; and the primary water sources of the region, all on the Israeli side of the Separation Wall -- in reality an annexation wall. Since 1967, Israel has vastly expanded the borders of Jerusalem in violation of Security Council orders and despite universal international objection (including the U.S., at least formally). The focus on settlement expansion, and Washington's groveling, are not the only farcical elements of the current negotiations. The very structure is a charade. The U.S. is portrayed as an "honest broker" seeking to mediate between two recalcitrant adversaries. But serious negotiations would be conducted by some neutral party, with the U.S. and Israel on one side, and the world on the other. It is hardly a secret that for 35 years the U.S. and Israel have stood virtually alone in opposition to a consensus on a political settlement that is close to universal, including the Arab states, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Iran), and all other relevant parties. With brief and rare departures, the two rejectionist states have preferred illegal expansion to security. Unless Washington's stand changes, political settlement is effectively barred. And expansion, with its reverberations throughout the region and the world, continues. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20101206.htm 6 Dec 2010 – Washington's pathetic capitulation to Israel while pleading for a meaningless three-month freeze on settlement expa.... Don't you just love those Article from anywhere of two years to Decades old?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky the number 1 Israel hater of the world.
Made a career out of it. The charade of the Arab-Israeli talks is this: Arabs/Palestinians have no interest or willingness to actually accept peace with a Jewish state of Israel. Whenever they get autonomy as they now have in the West Bank and Gaza they misuse it to launch more terrorist attacks. This is the central reason why Pal/Arabs have been unable to advance economically, politically and as a vital society. They are unwilling to accept peace so they are unable to make peace. Has nothing to do with the US and our much needed support of the terrorized and abused Israelis who are simply trying to live peacefully next to this cesspool. Palestinian Arabs are caught in their own hell made of hatred, self-pity, terrorism and despair. When Palestinians put down their bombs and pick up their shovels there will be peace. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky I would take his word over any number of unnamed propagandists.
You only like the "named" propagandists?! Why would you take Chomsky's word on anything? He may be a cunning Linguist but he does not know squat about Israel.
Chomsky is an idiot who has made a career out of making controversial and inflammatory anti-Israel arguments as a method of shameless self-aggrandizement. I would not paper a rat's cage with some of his vehemently anti-Israeli writings. The rat deserves better.
Just because he was born to Jewish parents and somehow managed to get a faculty appointment at MIT does not impress me. What impresses me is excellent insight and fair analysis and Chomsky fails miserably on both counts at least in regard to Israel. Here is another guy who was "born Jewish"
"Rising star of Hungarian anti-Semitic party forced to resign after he discovers his Jewish heritage It emerged that Csanad Szegedi's grandfather was a forced labour camp veteran and that his grandmother was a survivor of Auschwitz" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rising-star-of-hungarian-antisemitic-party-forced-to-resign-after-he-discovers-his-jewish-heritage-8053216.html Maybe he and Chomsky can start a new Hungarian rat cage paper Party.
The fact is his observations are correct and honest and that of course infuriates the propagandists and zionist thugs. He has nothing to gain by anything he is a principled man and a man of honor. I find your contempt for him laughable and absurd. That is why they haven't fired him yet!
That and Freedom Of Speech which you all claim doesn't exist in the USA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 08/20/12 01:47 PM
|
|
Hotrod: 1. Your "examples" were not "hypothetical" they were assumptions. You clearly missed my point, and your statement is just an assumption in itself. 2.T he burden of proof is theirs, not mine because they have made the claims. I did not say "its a conspiracy" I said that their official report of the events of 9-11 is a conspiracy THEORY. (OR else it is just a lie.)
You clearly cannot grasp the concept. 3. You said: "It lies with my ilk." Seriously? Is that how you want to debate this subject with remarks like that? Why can't you discuss this subject in a respectful manner?
It's your choice to view that as a negative. Not my intent. You claim that the "burden of proof lies with me if I "dispute" the official Story." Correct?
No, obviously your comprehension skills are lacking, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Re-read the sections where I mention 'those who posit alternative theories.' My only "dispute" at this point is a request to see the proof of their claims. I don't believe they have proof. Therefore, I am calling them out. I am asking them and anyone else who accepts the official story to show the proof.
Why should they bother wasting funds on fringe theorists who wouldn't believe anything they put forward in the first place. I mentioned this earlier. Why is your comprehension so lacking? As I have stated from the outset (please pay attention), the argument(s) against the OS are either logically or scientifically specious.
Nice word, but you are wrong. spe·cious//Adjective: Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument". Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty'. Okay please PAY ATTENTION. My so-called "argument" AT THIS POINT is simply that I want them to prove their claims. It cannot be "actually wrong." Or "misleading." It is VERY SPECIFIC AND SIMPLE. Your responses (rhetoric) do not mean anything. It is meaningless gobbldeegook. Only because you lack the ability to understand the simple concept I trying to explain to you. 4.QUESTION: Hotrod: Do you trust the government to tell you the truth? Do you believe the official report? You have avoided that question with your gibberish.
I has a more logical foundation than any theory you have posted in the time I've been here. Nor that of anyone else on the many fora I participate in. And this has been explained on numerous occasions, yet you choose to dismiss it.
um... no it hasn't. I already KNOW WHY the official report was changed anyway. Do you? I doubt it.
Please make at least a salutory effort to keep my posts in context. This was in reference to the Plane ID nos, not the OS. My point is not that it was changed, but that people believed the first one without questions, and then they believed the second one without questions....
Assumption. People place their faith in the government to handle everything and they don't want to question the official report. They don't care, and they don't really pay attention. They think a person like me who questions the almighty government report are heretics, even blasphemous.
Unsubstantiated opinion. "OMG she doesn't believe the official 9-11 report! She must be one of those wacked out conspiracy theory nut cases they are always talking about. "
Simplistic, but I can understand why you'd see it that way. I want to make this very simple for you since you don't comprehend what I am saying.
They have no proof of their claims. You either missed my point, or you are creating just another diversion. Please focus on my point and not what you believe it to be. You do not understand the concept of 'burden of proof' and this meandering persiflage proves it. |
|
|
|
|
