clocker bob wrote: Your attitude is a sure method of diluting blame for their actions.

Again, it is not that simple. This "wealth and power" that we speak of is deeply rooted and complicated. I can understand why you want to put a face to the "monster." It makes things easier. But in reality, there are so many variables. Sure, there are people in power that should be held accountable for their crimes, in places such as the World Court for example, but it seems to me that you are more focused on secret bogeymen.

In the end, I think we agree on the fundamental problems. So let's just leave it at that.

nihil wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Your attitude is a sure method of diluting blame for their actions.

Again, it is not that simple. This "wealth and power" that we speak of is deeply rooted and complicated. I can understand why you want to put a face to the "monster." It makes things easier.

How is my way easier? I think the relentless campaign to convince citizens not to affix blame person-by-person and not to connect the dots of conspiracies makes my approach the more difficult one, and that campaign also proves that the conspirators find it much 'easier' to do their business in partial to total anonymity- this all seems obvious to me.

You can't have it both ways. To say that there are concentrations of wealth and power and then follow that with a disavowal of a strategy of identification and exposure of them means that you don't really understand what is a cabal and what is a conspiracy, or you accept the concentrations of wealth as healthy or unavoidable or not worthy of attention.

Putting a face to the monster makes the monster understandable and puts the monster on the peoples' radar. If you can't see that explanations like "deeply rooted and complicated" are a mindset supplied to you by cabals desirous of insulating themselves from scrutiny, then I guess you will resume your unwitting collaboration with them.

Any man-made action or series of actions is traceable to actual men. The global economy is not chaos theory; it's a working machine, tended to by men. To say otherwise is to admit laziness or to defeat your own self intellectually.

nihil wrote: Sure, there are people in power that should be held accountable for their crimes, in places such as the World Court for example, but it seems to me that you are more focused on secret bogeymen.

Damn, you are sloppy, even within a single sentence.

You say that "there are people that should be held accountable"
( contradicting your stated policy of not identifying men and cabals, because it's all too "complicated and deeply rooted" ), and then, although you don't think in terms of cabals, you know enough about who's in the cabals to decide that the ones I'm focused on are comprised of secret boogeymen.

nihil wrote: In the end, I think we agree on the fundamental problems. So let's just leave it at that.

Actually, we half agree on one half of the problem, the half where we identify the problem. The part about what course of action to take, we don't agree at all- until you cite the case of Venezuela again and I tell you that Chavez thinks in terms of conspiracies and cabals and that's why he was able to translate a useful message to the voters, and then you go back to saying that there are no cabals.

Nihil is interested in dismantling the power of corporations and undemocratic governments. You're interested in battling the Illuminati.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I haven't said "common." I said obvious. I'll agree with you: nobody (at least nobody with a megaphone) was interested in saying things that were sensible or rational or useful or particularly true at that time.

Griffin made unpopular predictions early in the game. He chose to be right in the face of mass coercion to rally behind imperialism. Maybe the fact that he's not a leading media figure diminishes that fact, but what is under his control- his words, or the impact of his words? Bill Maher experienced the converse situation- his words were minimal ( and irrefutably correct to anyone but a simpleton ), but the reaction was substantial, because he was on our televisions.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:This doesn't mean that certain predictions weren't obvious to thinking people at the time.

Going back to my original post beginning the thread, I was only mounting a defense for an author who had written a book that I value and was the subject of a slander attack by Andrew L. ( who had not read the book ), because Andrew L. has a personal grudge against me, not Griffin. I thought that the predictions, as obvious ( and some have said common, but you haven't ) as they may have been to all of us patting ourselves on our backs for the calm heads we also claim to have had in the days following 9/11, demonstrate ( to me ) that Griffin is a thinker of substance and not deserving of being discredited as a kook by Andrew L. because he worries about the UN or isn't published by a top tier house.

That's all. I can say without reservation that anyone who took the time to read Griffin's book on the Federal Reserve would be rewarded with some healthy skepticism about banking and the markets, and I hate attacks on people's credibility based on circumstantial superfluous crap; Griffin isn't here, so I defended him..

Antero wrote:Nihil is interested in dismantling the power of corporations and undemocratic governments.

That are controlled by cabals connected to secret societies and inherited wealth.

Antero wrote: You're interested in battling the Illuminati.

Who, along with other secret societies and cabals founded on inherited wealth, control corporations and undemocratic governments.

And good job on putting words in my mouth, too. Hmm... someone's talking about central banking- I know! Say they're talking about the Illuminati. Then say they're talking about the lizard men. Then say they're talking about the Repitilian Greys. Keep distorting the conspiracy offered into something more easily disproved- good strategy.

clocker bob wrote:

nihil wrote: Sure, there are people in power that should be held accountable for their crimes, in places such as the World Court for example, but it seems to me that you are more focused on secret bogeymen.

Damn, you are sloppy, even within a single sentence.

You say that "there are people that should be held accountable"
( contradicting your stated policy of not identifying men and cabals, because it's all too "complicated and deeply rooted" ), and then, although you don't think in terms of cabals, you know enough about who's in the cabals to decide that the ones I'm focused on are comprised of secret boogeymen.

No, no, no. Let's try this:

A.The current administration is guilty of violating international law. This is uncontroversial and would hold up in a court of law. The evidence is clear.

B. The current administration is not guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. However, you and a few hundred others (weren't there about 500 at your convention?) seem to believe otherwise. The evidence at best is speculation and would not hold up in a court of law.

I'm sure you're hot to type a bunch of convoluted and abstract crap right about now. I'm sure you'll find a way to continue to twist my words and my point. By all means, go for it. But I will continue to be believe that A is more important than B.

nihil wrote:No, no, no. Let's try this:

A.The current administration is guilty of violating international law. This is uncontroversial and would hold up in a court of law. The evidence is clear.

And the fact that nobody from the adminstration has been tried or will be tried in a court of international law proves what to you about international law? That it doesn't apply to the real criminals, maybe?

nihil wrote:B. The current administration is not guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. However, you and a few hundred others (weren't there about 500 at your convention?) seem to believe otherwise. The evidence at best is speculation and would not hold up in a court of law.

Further proof of your idiocy. Yes, the fact that the meeting rooms at the embassy suites only held five hundred or less people proves inconclusively that only 500 people on earth distrust the official story- only 500 people were there, right?

nihil wrote:I'm sure you're hot to type a bunch of convoluted and abstract crap right about now. I'm sure you'll find a way to continue to twist my words and my point.

No, I'm very nearly through typing shit that sails right over your head for the day. I'm sure you're still working on misunderstanding my previous five posts.

nihil wrote:By all means, go for it. But I will continue to be believe that A is more important than B.

You are sinking fast. A is more important so B can be disregarded? Cool, let's eliminate investigating all crimes and assorted genocides below a certain casualty threshold- maybe 3,500 plus?

What does your personal belief in Bush as war criminal have to do with your personal belief in the official story of 9/11? Apparently nothing. Same person, different days, so what, different ethics?

The fact that you believe he would cheerfully kill Iraqis for lies but don't believe Bush would lie to and kill Americans demonstrates how inadequately prepared you are to understand evil men.

Good luck untangling these abstract arguments. I'm punching the clock and will clean up your next mess in the morning.

The evidence at best is speculation and would not hold up in a court of law

wouldn't it be lovely if we could try and discover if this were true in a court of law with one of those American juries I am increasingly growing to like?

nihil wrote:A.The current administration is guilty of violating international law. This is uncontroversial and would hold up in a court of law. The evidence is clear.

B. The current administration is not guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. However, you and a few hundred others (weren't there about 500 at your convention?) seem to believe otherwise. The evidence at best is speculation and would not hold up in a court of law.

First of all I suggest you look at some statistics regarding Americans who believe the government at least knew about 9/11.

Secondly, and i don't want to bring this up in a confrontational way but could you have a look at this i wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

While I'm at it I'm going to bring something up again. A question no one answered.
Do you (anti conspiracy theory types) think the current Neo-con administration would ever think of harming 'it's own' people for personal advantage?
If you think they would be ethically capable then can you say why they would not have at least allowed 9/11 if not being directly involved?
If you think they would never allow such a thing can you tell me why?
I'll add to this - if you think they are morally capable of harming 'their own' people then would occam's razor not suggest that a multi billion dollar super secret intelligence agency might be a more likely guilty party than 19 fellas with box cutters?

And also, I should perhaps ask, do you think the case against the box cutters would stand up in a court of law?

And Bob I have to ask, you say you use the UN as some sort of short hand for the international conspiracy. Do you think Griffin is doing this or do you think he actually believes the UN is out to subvert the will of Americans literally?