Libya - the truth - Page 6

On August 30 2011 19:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2011 18:52 Zep wrote: baal: STFU about 9/11. 95% of the scientific world is against what you believe. I love how you "simply" (your words) state your opinion as if it is objective fact when mere 95% of what you are talking about is total bullshit. You'd be delusional to not believe everything you state is an overwhelming underdog on being correct. So seriously, shut the fuck up you fucking faggot. This is a thread about a conspiracy about libya. Stop derailing every thread out there on why you're correct on 9/11. Douchebag. Bring it up in another thread or shut the fuck up, cunt. Seriously, I don't care if i get warned or banned for stating that. I brought it up, not him.

Exactly... i didnt bring it up.

Normally i dignify even the most idiotic of posts with a response but yours is just too much, randomly making up statistics and yelling insults and the cherry on the the top i dont care if i get banned oh you rebel you!

So next time you feel like raging go punch a wall or something because you are only making a pathetic spectacle out of your ignorance.

2 questions, both semi derail...

baal-can u name a person who u respect intellectually who believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory? cuz ppl who i'm fairly certain u respect, i.e. hitchens and chomsky both don't. (hitchens actually says the iraq invasion was a good idea)

mods-at what pt do u ban d_smart for saying dumb shit? I mean mjd gets banned w/o warning for a racist joke but d_smart doesn't get anything for saying/preaching some of the most ignorant stupid shit ever. Seems weird.

edit: both of these r derails, i don't wanna discuss the first topic really, its just a question that i've been wondering.

Damn it. My bad. Turns out i just really wanna fight baal. Somebody put up the tickets and give us 2 months of training. Should be LP gold.

Let's summarise:
1. BBC shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli with lots of people - all waving Indian Flags.
2. Al Jazeera shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli where the sign on the wall is very different from the original one.
3. A Serbian Crew goes to places that are reported to be battlefields ( f.x. the hospital) and they are perfectly peaceful.
4. Rebels officially state the capturing of Qaddafi's son. However, to prove them wrong he pops out in the centre of Tripoli among a huge crowd of Libyans and evidently being free. Rebels later state they have no idea how he excaped from them.
5. Qaddafi is reported dead at least once. He is still alive.

Just brief explainations for all 5 points I stated please. If you think one of them is not true, just tell me I would give you several mainstream articles/news footage for each.
For the fun of it I will try to explain them putting myself in your wool.

Palak - would you please summarise the explainations for all of these points to clear things out.
1 - BBC put the wrong footage. And they have done it several other times which only shows how unprofessional they are, not that they are lying.
2 - All pictures you can find on the square in the internet are actually fake and Al Jazeera are showing the true Green Square, which explains the different sign.
3 - The Serbian Crew was invited by Qaddafi who has built a model of the whole town with hospitals and buildings (not just 1 square) and have bought bombed cars and actors to fool the masses watching TV. Strangely enough, the footage has not been shown on TV so all the million dollars go to waste and no one is fooled.
4 - Qaddafi's son is a big fan of Rambo and has trained for years with Al Qaeda so when they capture him he surrounds all by himself an army of 100 sodliers and kills them leaving no witnesses. Later fellow rebels find the massacre and report that Qaddafi's son has escaped and no one is alive to tell the story how it happened.
5 - Qaddafi is actually Jesus so he ressurects and every time he is killed, he comes back from the dead.

I gave my best being in your wool, now tell me what are your explainations, palak.

Joe Rogan son

On August 30 2011 20:56 palak wrote: 2 questions, both semi derail... baal-can u name a person who u respect intellectually who believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory? cuz ppl who i'm fairly certain u respect, i.e. hitchens and chomsky both don't. (hitchens actually says the iraq invasion was a good idea) mods-at what pt do u ban d_smart for saying dumb shit? I mean mjd gets banned w/o warning for a racist joke but d_smart doesn't get anything for saying/preaching some of the most ignorant stupid shit ever. Seems weird. edit: both of these r derails, i don't wanna discuss the first topic really, its just a question that i've been wondering.

Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky.

Its quite common that strong anti-religious people are strong advocators of the state (i guess they substitute their need for control in that area).

Who do i admire intellectually, (i wouldnt use admire) but id have to say, Bill Hicks, Stephan Molyneux, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Joe Rogan (this is obviously excluding ancestral philosophers)

As you can see especially from Stanhope, Carlin and Rogan, these guy are not geniuses, but i dont think this "knowledge" is really hard to conclude its just simply to overcome indoctrination.

For example, you dont need to be a genius to realize christianity is absolutely retarded and false, yet somebody centuries ago figures out calculus yet he believes in the flood, a total brillian genius in one thing, yet he fails to realize one of the most obvious truths in his face (his religion being false), I think this is exactly what happens with the state, you dont need to be brilliant to see this obvious truth, its simply that people are indoctrinated to not truly analyze it critically, you were born into it just like religion, and your reaction to the concept of anarchy is the same as the reaction of atheism to christian, is a knee-jerk reaction, thats why the word anarchy is just as loaded as the world blasphemy.

I dont care what you say, you have never ever thought critically about the state and a stateless society, in the same way i am 100% certain a religous person has never thought critically about his beliefs... why? because they still believe.

^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself?


As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time.

On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: I dont care what you say, you have never ever thought critically about the state and a stateless society, in the same way i am 100% certain a religous person has never thought critically about his beliefs... why? because they still believe.

Whats the diference? you belive in something highly utopic. Puts in you in the same boat as religious people, trying to convince others of the way things should be done,based on your belifs. Your sckepticism is a result of your belifs really, and not a result of critical thinking... why? because you still belive.

On August 31 2011 10:24 palak wrote: ^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself? As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time.

So instead of trying to see what im saying, you focus on me, trying to measure my ego, its a shame you cant see past your indoctrination, but ill humor your questions.

Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking.

So I said i had more idea about how the world works than anybody else in this thread, the same way I would say I have more idea about life and death than anybody if i were in a religious forum discussing the afterlife, that does not imply i believe i have the highest IQ in the religious forum or here.

But on your questions about how i rank myself in intellect, i consider myself very intelligent, about people i know personally well i dont consider many people i know very intelligent, there are probably more intelligent people in this forum than the ones i know personally.

People ive read well, i think Stefan is brilliant and far better than me at explaining his ideas, he is probably more read than me, and how i would rake myself world wise well, given tests results, and particular experiences in my life i am confident i am in the top 1 percentile, which in world population in the billions is far from impressive.

On August 31 2011 10:50 Baalim wrote: Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking.

You don't consider the fact that it is way easier to contest what is in the Bible (or any other religious facts) with the knowledge we have nowadays than for Plato, Newton. If you had Newton's knowledge, would you prove rationnaly "such things" are wrong ?
And without considering the time you belong to, your ideas depend on your readings, on people you interact with, you don't build them alone.

So Mr. Devil. What do you think happens when you die? Do you go in nothingness. Do you believe we have souls. I want to hear the most enlightened one .

Baal is nothing more than religious zealot in regards to 9/11. It seriously cracks me up that less than 2% of the entire world's entire population of architects and engineers have signed the Investigate 9/11 petition and yet he thinks he is 100% correct in thinking it was a demolition. More specifically, he's bragged and used it in his arguments about it in other threads how there are 1500 people in his profession that he never graduated from that say the same bullshit as him. I'd love to know the actual % of architects/engineers who believe what he does, but there's never been a study or poll to find that out and i'm not sure if you could actually scientifically calculate all the variables that come into a loaded poll question like that. But nonetheless, given the data that we have, the chances of baal being correct is more than likely less than 10% and yet he laughs and calls 60% of Americans idiots for not believing in evolution.

So my question to you is, Are you so delusional that even if you are correct, you really don't realize what the actual odds of being correct are?

Oh and by the way, the reason why i said I didn't care if i got banned for stating how pathetic i thought your argument was, was because MDJ got a two week ban for making fun of you for being mexican, and i assumed i would easily get the same thing for calling you a cunt. I wasn't doing it to be hardcore. You're attempt at mocking me was about as dumb and illogical as D_Smarts argument that the bbc video meant it was a cover up for what was really going on in Libya...See! it all connects.

There are odds only from the perspective of the unenlightened one. The truth is one.

There is a syndrome, i dont remember the name, but im pretty sure baal suffers from this. What it does, its like block you to accept and perceive your own mistakes, then you argue everybodies opinion saying that you know more, that you are more intelligent and etc, everybody is wrong except you. Its not ego or narcisism, it has some strange name, kinda the Stockholm syndrome and things like that.

On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky.

What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq
was in violation of every one?

They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort.

Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c.

Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land,
their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots)
aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait

Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds.

If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons?

Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation,
but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state.

On August 31 2011 13:44 D_smart_S wrote: There are odds only from the perspective of the unenlightened one. The truth is one.

So 90+% of the GRADUATED architects and engineers in the world are unenlighted? That's a pretty stupid statement about science my friend. And you do realize that your entire argument may have credibility if the mainstream media was the only voice we had for reasoning. But with technology like facebook and twitter and a lack of evidence from those sources of anything you claim, it's impossible to take your argument seriously. Or are you going to claim that the US government controls all that media as well?
Seriously mods, how do you ban someone for making a joke about mexicans, yet you let continuous shit like this slide? unbelievable. This is so much more offensive and provocative than a fucking joke.

On August 31 2011 11:49 kingpowa wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 10:50 Baalim wrote: Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking. You don't consider the fact that it is way easier to contest what is in the Bible (or any other religious facts) with the knowledge we have nowadays than for Plato, Newton. If you had Newton's knowledge, would you prove rationnaly "such things" are wrong ? And without considering the time you belong to, your ideas depend on your readings, on people you interact with, you don't build them alone.

Our current knowledge? i really didnt base my refusal of religion based on evolution or explanations of the universe, it was pretty much based on common sense for example:

- The idea of free will cannot exist when theres an omniscient being
- There cant be an all-loving god and all-powerful and there be suffering in this world (and eternal punishments)
- The bible is absurd, contradictory and there isnt the silghtest shred of evidence that what it says its true.

I do believe the indoctrination in their times were stronger, so it does give them more of an "excuse", but it shows you that even absolute geniuses are unable to discard ideas that should be thrown out with less than 10 minutes of critical thinking.

So basically, yes they had it "harder" to get over religion, yet what im saying is still true, its not necessary about sheer intelligence, people can easily shield certain beliefs from their own rationality.

On August 31 2011 13:14 D_smart_S wrote: So Mr. Devil. What do you think happens when you die? Do you go in nothingness. Do you believe we have souls. I want to hear the most enlightened one .

Well what logic and evidence tell us, and so far its that our bodies rot and our consciousness disappears.

On August 31 2011 14:40 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky. What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq was in violation of every one? They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort. Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c. Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land, their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots) aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds. If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons? Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation, but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state.

so under those checkponts... lets compare the united states:

*Genocide convention: USA is arguably the most genocidal state in the entire world
*Harboring terrorist organizations: The CIA has conducted more coup detats than any other organization on the world and its definitelly larger and more powerful than any other.
*Waging war or occupying countries: Afghanistan, Iraq possibly Iran in a future, need i say more?
*Violations of nuclear threaty: USA is has the 2nd biggest nuclear armament in the world


Also, NorthKorea has violated those far worse than Iraq, also A LOT of countries have, yet they dont get invaded unless therse something to gain from it.

You should rename those as USABLE EXCUSES to get into a country and steal its resources.

Also those invations for countries that are going wild are decided by the United Nations, not by a random country with lots of weapons and ambitions

On August 31 2011 14:35 c4rnage wrote: There is a syndrome, i dont remember the name, but im pretty sure baal suffers from this. What it does, its like block you to accept and perceive your own mistakes, then you argue everybodies opinion saying that you know more, that you are more intelligent and etc, everybody is wrong except you. Its not ego or narcisism, it has some strange name, kinda the Stockholm syndrome and things like that.

baal is definitely bi-polar or has some other mental condition. No healthy, logical and reasonable person would be so confidentially delusional to the point that he is.
And personally I think I should be at least warned for even suggesting such a thing without being in a position to do so, but somebody needs to say it.