Mumbai Shootings (1 Viewer)

[Il Re]

These guys are supposed to be Pakistani?

what are they supposed to be then?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Zé Tahir]

Who are they?

The Mumbai culprits.

what are they supposed to be then?

I don't know, but they don't look Pakistani.

 

[swag]

what are they supposed to be then?

The Desi Backstreet Boys?

 

[Il Re]

The Mumbai culprits.



I don't know, but they don't look Pakistani.

pakistani's come in different shapes, sizez and colours

 

[Zé Tahir]

pakistani's come in different shapes, sizez and colours

Yea sure, but I don't know...they don't look like the typical Pakistani.

 

[Bjerknes]

That supports the charge of cluelessness, but not complicity.

This is my main beef with any conspiracy theory: people race to presume elaborate, evil plots to explain something when basic competence will suffice.

If you even have one iota of belief in the second law of thermodynamics, you have to acknowledge that the odds of being a screw-up are an order of magnitude more likely than a surgically precise sinister plot that goes undetected and without a hitch.

Without a hitch? What do you mean? There are all sorts of various signs that point towards somebody having prior knowledge to the attacks, especially the purchasing of ridiculous amounts of put options and the laughable "collapse" of Building 7. If we want to discuss thermodynamics and engineering, it's been proven by independent researchers that Building 7 could not be explained by the "collapse" of the other towers.

This is the thing, Greg. We were conditioned to believe Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks even on September 11th, 2001, without any evidence whatsoever. The media quickly pointed the finger at Bin Laden without any proof, without any substantial evidence, and even today there is zero evidence against Bin Laden, as seen by his FBI profiling. The general consensus was that Osama committed the crime just a couple days after the attacks. I mean, the system and due process was corrupted right then and there. After that happens, there really is no turning back from that original notion, especially when people were using their hearts instead of their heads.

You may dismiss it as simply "conspiracy theory" nonsense, but even you yourself stated the government lied to us before and the general media cannot be trusted whole heartedly. So what gives, Greg?

 

[swag]

What gives is that exonerating OBL is one thing. Implicating your own government in it a la the Pearl Harbor attack intel is a whole other religion of faith unto itself.

Because what you're talking about then comes down to religious faith no more or less than believing a Jew rose from the dead.

 

[Bjerknes]

So you're saying because something is generally considered unlikely, we shouldn't investigate it?

Isn't this like the whole "world is round conspiracy" all over again?

 

[swag]

Yes. Because there's a fine line between pursuing cases with enough of a factual foundation to wasting taxpayer money on the endless supply of Hail Mary passes -- and witch hunts of people who listen to too much late-night talk radio and want to believe their world is a lot more fascinating and conniving than boring life actually provides.

That stuff borders on judicialtainment.

 

[Bjerknes]

But again, you don't have anything to go on besides what the government has already told you.

I find it foolish to think that people who research this stuff are only, "hoping that their lives are more fascinating than they really are."

Isn't that a slap in the face to the actual victims of the events who are actually searching for more facts?

 

[swag]

Conspiracytainment is a multi-million, if not multi-billion, dollar business. I acknowledge this. But this country has already suffered enough from the failed pursuit of bogus 9/11 conspiracy theories (see: Iraq and Saddam).

Before we continue to invest more in that rat hole and proved we've learned nothing from the folly of Iraq, I would rather see more in prevention.

 

[Bjerknes]

Greg, I know you're dodging questions and saying this stuff just as a precaution against being blacklisted. You can't fool me.

 

[swag]

Did I mention that once, while living in Maryland, I held a government security clearance -- after pissing-in-a-cup prerequisites and having my family members and friends interviewed by G-men? Even though this was during the Cold War, it was a bit much when I saw propagandist wall posters near the mail room of Santa Claus holding a "shhhhh!" finger to his lips to remind us Christmas is the season to be vigilant of enemy spies.

Even so, I've been a resident of San Francisco city proper for 12 years now, and Bill O'Reilly wants to see me burn in the eternal terrorist flames of fiery, permissive liberal hell.

 

[Seven]

What gives is that exonerating OBL is one thing. Implicating your own government in it a la the Pearl Harbor attack intel is a whole other religion of faith unto itself.

Because what you're talking about then comes down to religious faith no more or less than believing a Jew rose from the dead.

That's a rather odd comment as it would, quite obviously, be the other way around. You're the one who has faith.

 

[swag]

That's a rather odd comment as it would, quite obviously, be the other way around. You're the one who has faith.

I don't recall many churches founded on the premise of disbelief.

Is that like the Apathy Party, which has a lot of members but no one shows up to the meetings?

 

[Seven]

You're the one who has faith in what a government says, because it's the government. That looks like religion to me.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea sure, but I don't know...they don't look like the typical Pakistani.

then they seem like the perfect men for the job! lets say, hypothetically, i plan to bomb places of high interest in, say, pakistan . then i'd definitely choose someone who looks more pakistani than Indian. cos then, there will be people make the same argument that you're making: that since they dont look Indian and look more Pakistani, it's actually an inside job rather than a terror plot by a mastermind residing in India! it would only add to the brief period of confusion, and a long period of lolz by me!

speculation, of course...

 

[Bjerknes]

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Economist and consultant for various global institutions, believes these attacks were staged attacks by intelligence groups. So I'm not the only "crazy" one.

 

[swag]

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Economist and consultant for various global institutions, believes these attacks were staged attacks by intelligence groups. So I'm not the only "crazy" one.

But how much do global economics have to do with the motivations of terrorists, really? Though I see where this is coming from, it could suffer from the genius vs. savant fallacy: i.e., a smart guy in one field of knowledge may not translate so easily over to another.

Hence why we've got Steve Young on ESPN commercials mumbling in the mic about global warming...

 

[Bjerknes]

But how much do global economics have to do with the motivations of terrorists, really? Though I see where this is coming from, it could suffer from the genius vs. savant fallacy: i.e., a smart guy in one field of knowledge may not translate so easily over to another.

Hence why we've got Steve Young on ESPN commercials mumbling in the mic about global warming...

Not really following you there, Greg. For instance, experts on energy economics have a grasp of quite a lot of Middle East issues because they have to, including terrorism. This professor consults for the WHO, ILO, and UNDP, plus has wrote several books on terrorism.

But alas, it falls upon a majority of deaf ears.