Spring RTS Engine

a) Your first link is worse (gramatically and journalistically) than most grade a lunatic conspiracy sites.

b) Gimme factual inconsitencies in chomsky's work. Not to mention the fact i was thinking primarily of his book "the manufacture of consent" which is pretty smack bang in the middle of his field and still regarded as one of the most important works on the topic

Nothing useful in Irag... oookkkk

And the middle East has always been unstable, the "wars" in afganistan and iraq certainly arent the sole cause of the easts instability, people are just paying more attention to the place these days, North Korea and Iran didnt develop nukes after or because of 911 im sure :)

Please read this, its fairly long but it does make you think,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3327

Anyway id not rule anything out when it comes to Bush, he left his own citizens to die in New Orleans for starters.
The fact the USA's main vulnerability in the next 40 yrs will be its increasing reliance on oil... 9/11 is/was the perfect excuse to start a war to secure the 2nd largest know oil reserve on the planet...

It does make me wonder I have to say...

For some bizzare reason, I don't think that Bush was being deliberatly innefficent during Katrina. That dosn't escuse the delay, not at all, but there was no maliciousness behind it. People, at least normal ones, don't leave thousands of people to die.

On the War in Iraq, I must quote myself: "People only look at the casualties. They never notice anything else, benificial or otherwise. Just the number of the dead and dying, because that is what sells"

Zoombie wrote:On the War in Iraq, I must quote myself: "People only look at the casualties. They never notice anything else, benificial or otherwise. Just the number of the dead and dying, because that is what sells"

General Tommy Franks, US central command "we don't do body counts"

I actually ment the media, cuase all they seem to report is "10 dead, 25 civies dead, car bomb car bomb car bomb" ext.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ has consistently been much higher than all mainstream european news.
IMO (and my "news and society" proffessors) there is something of a conspiracy of silence these days over civiallian casualties.
There's more coverage of Maddona's adoption than there ever was of the massacre of Fallujah/Israel land grab in lebanon/Recent Gaza incursion/etc/etc/etc

I could keep arguing...and you could keep shooting down my points...

Also I really really hate the media's focus on celebrities. I, and I'm sure large tracts of america, DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLOUR about who J-lo is marrying this week! That really pisses me off.

Caydr wrote:Ignore the "idiot running for senate" bit, he sounds like a bit of a crackpot, just pay attention to the audio clip of Junior. Link was sent to me... I'm not much of a conspiracy nut, but it was clear to me based on the "loose change" video that, if nothing else, the fact that the buildings were brought down by demolition, not plane crashes, was indisputable.

If anything is clear to you based on the Loose Change video, you might want to seriously reconsider how you handle finding information on the internet :/

Believe the attack was planned if you really want to. Just don't believe Loose Change. At least not by itself.

I agree with Zell, Loose Change is simply not a feasible basis for an argument or conspiracy.

Loose Change, like Michael Moore and a host of other fame-whore's discredit and undermine actual investigative journalism.

Michael Rupert ftw

Is Loose Change that flash vidio that makes it out that the American goverment flew jets into the WTC?

Also...I have one question. If our Patriot Missle Systems were online, who would say that we should have shot those planes down? Did anyone, at the time, know they were going to ram into buildings? Maybe some people, but for most of the country it was a shock that it was any more then a simple hijacking...or at least thats how it was told to me (I might be wrong, as most people are). So who's to say that the millitary would have fired the missles, and risked killing hundreds of people...saving thousands, but how would THEY know that at the time?

Its a nasty situation, I say.

pentagon strike is teh flash video about a "missile" instead of a 737.
As far as i understand, it is S.O.P. in teh USA to scramble interceptors when planes deviate from flightpaths and do not answer radio hails. Then again there was that massive "training exercise" going on at the time, involving most of the USAF flying over Alaska (and i think canada) simulating civilian planes being hijacked. Think Cheney had a pretty significant hand in organising that one too o_O

Oh btw: FREEMASONS AND ZIONISTS RUN TEH WORLD WE ARE ALL DESCENDED FROM SPACE LIZARDS ALL RADIO WAVES ARE CARRIER SIGNALS FOR BRAINWASHING TEH CIA KILLED JFK AND FLOURIDE TURNS YOU COMMUNIST!!!11!!1

grain alcohol ftw

pintle wrote:a) Your first link is worse (gramatically and journalistically) than most grade a lunatic conspiracy sites.

b) Gimme factual inconsitencies in chomsky's work. Not to mention the fact i was thinking primarily of his book "the manufacture of consent" which is pretty smack bang in the middle of his field and still regarded as one of the most important works on the topic

Regarding
a), ok,
and regarding
b) thank you for demonstrating your cluelessness beyond any doubt - since when have media studies been in the center of the field of linguistics, and since when have Chomsky's media studies been taken seriously in the field?

Chomsky is not the first hack to gain money and fame largely by creating polemics with an irresistible appeal to naïve and credulous undergraduate students, but he may be the most polished.

Luckily, his limited appeal makes him irrelevant among serious policy makers. Unluckily, it makes his odious views impossible to avoid, as his fan base of naïve and credulous undergraduate students is nearly impossible to educate, or even quiet.

Anyway, I will refer any interested parties to Keith Windschuttle's Chomsky takedown: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/ ... homsky.htm , and stop writing about Chomsky before I begin foaming at the mouth.

Pintle...if you live in the UK, why do you care so much about conspiracies in the US?

I recently saw Andrew Card - chief of staff to the President from his inauguration to last April or so - speak, here at UF.

His speech was "meh", but he answered questions very well. These were highly political questions, and he answered them in a concise, reasoned way, without partisan jabs or anything of that sort.

The first question was essentially "why didn't we shoot down the planes".

His answer was that the US government was taken by surprise. We don't make a habit of shooting down jetliners full of civilians simply because they've been hijacked. He said that the government, once it learned of the hijackings, assumed that they would be like every other terrorist hijacking that we've seen in the past - the hijackers would have the planes landed and would then make demands.

Essentially, the US government did not anticipate hijackers flying planes into buildings.

Thats what I, and most normal people, would have thought.

Foe OfTheBee wrote: b) thank you for demonstrating your cluelessness beyond any doubt - since when have media studies been in the center of the field of linguistics, and since when have Chomsky's media studies been taken seriously in the field?

Chomsky is not the first hack to gain money and fame largely by creating polemics with an irresistible appeal to naïve and credulous undergraduate students, but he may be the most polished.

Luckily, his limited appeal makes him irrelevant among serious policy makers. Unluckily, it makes his odious views impossible to avoid, as his fan base of naïve and credulous undergraduate students is nearly impossible to educate, or even quiet.

Anyway, I will refer any interested parties to Keith Windschuttle's Chomsky takedown: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/ ... homsky.htm , and stop writing about Chomsky before I begin foaming at the mouth.

Le sigh. Manufacture of consent is essential reading on every (theoretical, as opposed to "maek filumz") Media studies degree I have looked into in the UK. That site cites no more than 3 factual criticisms of chomsky, one of which is nearly 40 years old. The criticisms of Manufacture of Consent are sub 13 year old GCSE level, and surprise, devoid of fact. The notion that Chomsky doesn't account for the personal politics and views of the journalists belies a complete incomprehension of the model he is proposing. Teh big 5 (soon to be 3) do not allow that vein of "news" to be published; There are some who organise self publication on a very limited budget (http://www.amazon.com/Tell-Me-Lies-Prop ... 0745322018 very good book) but of course the instinct for career preservation negates a lot of dissent.
That article is offensive to my british-educated mind. The author kept throwing out terms like "anti-american" and turning the entire of political debate into left vs right. It is incredibly selective on evidence, and, when semiotically analysed (oh noez! teh mediar studies) it is readily apparent how manipulative it is trying to be.

The factual errors in Chomsky's work you gave me where: 2 bad sources over the Sudan, and a 40 year old interpretation of available evidence which was credible at the time he wrote it and that the neo-con hack you referenced claims he failed to retract (im going to search z-net now). The criticisms of Manufacture... are petty, loaded with bias, and inherently flawed.

I am clueless beyond any doubt? Are you flaming for fun or do you really mean that? Semiotics=built on linguistics= absolutely core to theoretical media studies.

I said he was cliched when i referanced him (said id get flamed too) there are many other sources (John Pilger and Mark Curtis are two of my favourites, Yvonne Ridley is a geordie, so i gotta support her, even if she is a *little* nuts) When i suggested reading his work, i was referring to his criticism of the western corporate media model not his polemic (which you can take any way you want)

@Zoombie: I did some coursework and exams on news coverage of 9/11 that developed into an exploration of conspiracies in teh news, and frankly, you guys get all the best conspiracies, i mean JFK (and his brother), Roswell etc are just hilarious. Erm... i dont mean that a human being shot is hilarious, i mean the hysterical reactions i have drawn from Americans when joking about it are.

Also Britian is Airstrip 1. Our international politics are 90% what the USA wants us to do (that is a psuedo-joking exaggeration, put that flamethrower down)

Oh yeah, i also believe your president got into office under very suspicious circumstances (diebold) and happens to be commander in chief of the worlds largest military, in control of the biggest stockpile of nukes in existence (in the only country ever to have used them on people), a self-avowed envangelical fundamental christian (i.e. believes in and expects the rapture) who has repeatedly called his incursions into the middle-east a "crusade". His administration has repeadetly denied climate change, and been less co-operative at Kyoto then China (we'll see at Nairobi).
His administration scares me.
A lot.


*puts on asbestos suit and waits for teh rage*

e: sorry for long post, and Foe, please don't make personal attacks in this thread, lets keep it civil.

sigh... I can't believe that people think that this administration, which has been proven extremely inept in handling the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, both of which decreased lots of support for Bush (and now the Democrats are poised to regain the maybe even both the house and the senate...*), could perfectly pull off a huge conspiracy, WITHOUT ANY LEAKS.

So they shot a missle at the pentagon, and none of the many many bystanders noticed? So they kidnapped people who were sceduled to fly in the "highjacked" planes and got them to make cell phone calls to other people, and nobody said that it was the government's fault? Did the people making the calls think that they were actually on a highjacked plane or something? Did the government hypnotise them? Did they get their alien allies from Roswell to do it for them?

All without anybody telling the mainstream media except for liberal conspiracy theorists who were nowhere near the scene of the attack?



A far more likely answer, by occhams razor, is that the administration was simply too inept to handle a brilliantly executed surprise attack on our own soil.

*It must have been the democrats' fault! Ooh, I bet it was an eco-terrorist from the future, who saw that the Republicans were in power for so long that the environment was trashed, so he traveled back in time and helped to prevent the government from intercepting a terrorist attack, because he knew that then Bush would invade a bunch of stuff and lose support, which would then put the Democrats back in power. A flawless plan. Especially because he knew that we'd blame the republicans.

P.S. I'm a Democrat. Pretty far left too. But I still think that conspiracy like this are illogical.

We can all agree on that 3 fligths crashed that day, there's overwhelming amount of proof for that.

This site stops the thread now: http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=page& ... h32h4r5g1o

all i got from that link was:

Copyright 2002-2006 Google Inc.