America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Scott]

Many U.S. citizens were certainly killed on 9/11. However, the FBI has admitted that they had no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

Once again proving you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Are you denying that the FBI said they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

Not only that you didn't listen to your father.

I imagine you're referring to my father once telling me that the lack of evidence does not mean there is evidence of its lack. From what I remember, you seemed to disagree with his statement last time around. In any case, I myself think the statement needs a bit of modification. It all depends on why there is a lack of evidence. If one has not looked for the evidence and there is no other plausible explanation, that'd be one thing. In this case, however, I've found a much more plausible explanation- that 9/11 was a false flag operation and Bin Laden was set up as the patsy.

If the CIA says they can't release or confirm or deny that they have evidence that Osama Bin Laden released that tape how does that prove Osama is not on the tape?

How did we go from the FBI admitting they had no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 to you suddenly asking me the above question? In any case, would you mind specifying the tape that you're referring to? It's not like there's only been one alleged recording of Osama bin Laden over the years. Wikipedia has a list of all the alleged video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden since 9/11 here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Saddam Hussein did, yes, but only after consulting with US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told him that the U.S. 'had no opinion' on Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait. rense.com has a good article on the subject that suggests that Saddam was suckered into attacking Kuwait by the U.S.:

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

ROFLMAO. So the US made Russia attack Ukraine and made Saddam attack Kuwait. Yeah. You must be a logical thinking mouse.

Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:

**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

What immediately springs to mind is, why did James Baker instruct their official spokesperson to emphasize the instruction that the U.S. had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait"? I imagine you can agree that this certainly didn't seem to be true -after- Iraq invaded Kuwait. So what changed? Or perhaps nothing changed, and James Baker's instruction was made in order to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait?

That's debateable. It hinges on whether the Donbass republics were countries or not. Regardless, these self proclaimed republics certainly had a lot of people in them, and Ukraine certainly ended up killing a lot of them. When counting both the civilians killed as well as those fighting to remain independent of Ukraine, the official death toll was around 10,000 souls:

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War # Total Deaths | Wikipedia

Russia was certainly paying attention. Up until February 21st, they didn't recognize the Donbass republics, but on that day, that changed. They not only recognized them, but promised to protect them from aggression and 2-3 days later, Putin did just that, launching his military operation in Ukraine.

so your argument is Russia could promise to protect Texas from the US government and then invade the US and it would be OK under international law? Frankly, you are only proving you are either a Russian troll or a complete idiot.

If you had just omitted your last sentence with your ad hominem attack, this conversation would have been pretty good. In any case, I'll continue my tolerance of these flaws in your conversational style in order to get to your argument.

I find it fortuitous that you should bring up Texas, because Texas' history shares a lot of similarities with the history of the Donbass republics. Originally, Texas was mexican territory. A fair amount of Americans settled there, however, and the population decided that they wanted to become independent from Mexico, creating the Republic of Texas. As can be imagined, Mexico was not pleased with this development and began to wage a war with this rebellious region of their country. In time, the Republic of Texas held a vote to join the U.S.- the population voted to do so and the U.S. formally annexed Texas. Again, Mexico was not happy and went to wage war with Texas again.

However, now that Texas was part of the U.S., the U.S. responded in kind. Not only did they hold Texas, they took a large chunk of other Mexican regions as well, perhaps to discourage them from attacking territory it had claimed again.

Tell me, don't you find a lot of this strikingly similar to what's happened in Ukraine, with the Donbass republics substituting for the Republic of Texas, Russia substituting for the U.S. and Ukraine substituting for Mexico?

 

[Scott]

Again, just because I don't know what the photo depicts doesn't mean that it must therefore be a virus. You are the one claiming that contagious viruses are real. It's up to you to prove your case.

Since you can't tell us what it is, then it is a virus.

That's like showing someone a picture of a narwhal's horn and asking from what animal it comes from. If I were to then say that I don't know what animal it comes from, you could then triumphantly proclaim that it comes from a unicorn, and that that's the "prevailing consensus" and thus it must be true.

 

[Scott]

You have yet to show any strong evidence that viruses exist at all, let alone that they are attacked by the human body.

How do you think the human body defends itself from viruses and bacteria?

You haven't even provided decent evidence that viruses exist. Right now, all you've got going for you is the "prevailing consensus". There was once a "prevailing consensus" that the earth was flat. I'm sure you'd agree that it was a faulty one.

 

[Scott]

I'm not as trusting of the FBI as you are.

No, you are more trusting of Russian media sources.

I take what they have to say into account, just as I take what the FBI has to say into account. I trust neither implicitly.

As to what the Mueller report -did- conclude, I don't agree with at least some of it, starting with part of its opening:

**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

[Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report ]
**

I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.

[snip] You on the other hand have done no research [snip]

A false allegation, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise.

It's already been proven since you didn't read the Mueller report.

Apparently you didn't notice that the quote I made above was actually -from- the Mueller report. Furthermore, the Mueller report is hardly the only source of information when it comes to the evidence, or lack thereof, that Trump colluded with Russia.

The fact that Seth Rich's family sue Fox News and that Fox paid a settlement rather than fighting them does not mean that the claims therefore had to be false.

The truth is a defense in any civil suit.

It -can- be. Lies can also work as well. At the end of the day, a civil suit, or any other suit, is won or lost based on what a jury, a judge or a panel of judges decide. And while I imagine we'd both like them to always decide in a way favours the correct party, the sad fact is that that's not always what happens.

If the claim was true why wouldn't Fox use the truth to get the suit thrown out? It would take only one court filing.

I find it sad how naive you can be. Truth is not something you can just wave around like a magic wand and all will be right in the world. I think William F. Buckley came out with a good line for the truth:

“Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.”

Source:
https://quotes-cards.com/truth/truth/

 

[Scott]

A child may not be able to tell the difference.

Prove to me that anyone would be able to tell the difference between something that is true and something that isn't without sufficient information and you'd have a case.

I have had a similar discussion on another site. For some odd reason, it seems that primarily liberals have difficulty with beliefs and opinions and call them lies. The main example is that with group talk, almost all of them assert that Trump was LYING about election fraud. You will rarely get a photo of the murderer with the gun. Almost all cases that are heard in court are based on circumstantial evidence. There are mounds of it in the 2020 election and we recently found proof through Musk that Twitter was coordinating with the FBI to keep the Hunter laptop story from the public. How is that the job of the FBI anyway, even if the laptop was fake? That isn't in their job description. I have tons of circumstantial evidence and no one wants to listen, which is the same reaction to the horror of the FBI and DNC colluding with Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, and Google as to what to release to the pubic.

Thus, it is not a LIE but a belief that the election was stolen.

I agree, and I say that even though I haven't liked Trump since he started campaigning to become President back in 2015 or so. I fully admit that I'm not sure if Trump was cheated out of winning the last election, and I say that even though I was immensely relieved when he didn't. Ofcourse, back then I had no idea what Biden would do in the name of protecting people from Covid and "helping" Ukraine. I had wanted Bernie to win the democratic primary, but that didn't happen.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You frequently see things in a way that is far too black and white, when this world is filled with colour. Reading part of an article is not the same thing as not reading an article at all. Similarly, one can agree with some points of an article without agreeing with others.




As McRocket rightly pointed out in post #414, the above is a clear ad hominem attack, something which you've done a fair amount of times. You've provided no evidence that I have no beliefs. I tolerate these ad hominems from you because you -also- provide a fair amount of evidence and reasoning for your beliefs, which is the life's blood of any good discussion where 2 sides disagree on a given subject. As you know, I have even come to find some of your reasoning to be sound, for instance on your point that a logical argument doesn't necessarily mean it's true- it all depends on the premise(s).

So your beliefs move simply based on how much the ruble is worth?

I have presented evidence that your beliefs move around quite a bit. If you truly believed that viruses did not exist then you should reject every argument that uses a premise that they do exist. Your ability to accept the premise that viruses do exist proves that your belief they don't exist is not a true belief.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Are you denying that the FBI said they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

I am saying you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. Selective selection of facts to confirm a bias is not proof that the bias is true.

I imagine you're referring to my father once telling me that the lack of evidence does not mean there is evidence of its lack. From what I remember, you seemed to disagree with his statement last time around. In any case, I myself think the statement needs a bit of modification. It all depends on why there is a lack of evidence. If one has not looked for the evidence and there is no other plausible explanation, that'd be one thing. In this case, however, I've found a much more plausible explanation- that 9/11 was a false flag operation and Bin Laden was set up as the patsy.

Of course you found it more plausible. Did you also know that birds aren't real and they are drones used by the CIA to monitor people like you?

How did we go from the FBI admitting they had no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 to you suddenly asking me the above question? In any case, would you mind specifying the tape that you're referring to? It's not like there's only been one alleged recording of Osama bin Laden over the years. Wikipedia has a list of all the alleged video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden since 9/11 here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

I guess you are proving once again you don't bother to read your own sources.

Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:

**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

What immediately springs to mind is, why did James Baker instruct their official spokesperson to emphasize the instruction that the U.S. had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait"? I imagine you can agree that this certainly didn't seem to be true -after- Iraq invaded Kuwait. So what changed? Or perhaps nothing changed, and James Baker's instruction was made in order to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait?

Did the US tell Iraq to invade Kuwait? Did they order them to invade Kuwait? The leap to the US tricked them into invading is a pretty long one. Are you sure they weren't trying to trick them into attacking Egypt since Egypt is an Arab country. But that raises the very real question of how did the US trick Iraq into no longer thinking they were Persians? Iraq is not an Arab country. Iraqis would know that they are Persians.

If you had just omitted your last sentence with your ad hominem attack, this conversation would have been pretty good. In any case, I'll continue my tolerance of these flaws in your conversational style in order to get to your argument.

I find it fortuitous that you should bring up Texas, because Texas' history shares a lot of similarities with the history of the Donbass republics. Originally, Texas was mexican territory. A fair amount of Americans settled there, however, and the population decided that they wanted to become independent from Mexico, creating the Republic of Texas. As can be imagined, Mexico was not pleased with this development and began to wage a war with this rebellious region of their country. In time, the Republic of Texas held a vote to join the U.S.- the population voted to do so and the U.S. formally annexed Texas. Again, Mexico was not happy and went to wage war with Texas again.

However, now that Texas was part of the U.S., the U.S. responded in kind. Not only did they hold Texas, they took a large chunk of other Mexican regions as well, perhaps to discourage them from attacking territory it had claimed again.

Tell me, don't you find a lot of this strikingly similar to what's happened in Ukraine, with the Donbass republics substituting for the Republic of Texas, Russia substituting for the U.S. and Ukraine substituting for Mexico?

You left out a lot of the history of Texas. They were originally owned by Spain before they fought for independence from that rule. Then Texas also tried to declare their independence from the US and the US went to war to keep them as part of the US. And Texas is still part of the US. Shouldn't we rely on more recent history as our comparison point?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's like showing someone a picture of a narwhal's horn and asking from what animal it comes from. If I were to then say that I don't know what animal it comes from, you could then triumphantly proclaim that it comes from a unicorn, and that that's the "prevailing consensus" and thus it must be true.

Except I couldn't truthfully say that the prevailing consensus is that it came from a unicorn. Proving once again that you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

There are several facts pointing to viruses existing, whether you refuse to call them viruses or not.
1. People get sick from something that is not a bacteria
2. The sickness can be spread in some way
3. the sickness spread can be prevented by using measure to mitigate the transfer of some invisible organism
4. Electron microscope pictures exist of something in those people that isn't in other people.
5. genetic sequencing has shown those invisible organisms to contain RNA.
6. These invisible organisms have some way to replicate themselves in humans
7. The RNA in these organisms can evolve over time as they replicate
8. If we accept that the human immune system reacts to invading organisms then the reaction of the human body shows these to be some kind of organism
9. Bacteria and all cellular life uses DNA to replicate
10. These invisible organisms currently called viruses only contain RNA.

Which of the 10 points I listed above are not true?

Which of the 10 points above is Dr Sam Bailey ignoring in his claims that viruses don't exist?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You haven't even provided decent evidence that viruses exist. Right now, all you've got going for you is the "prevailing consensus". There was once a "prevailing consensus" that the earth was flat. I'm sure you'd agree that it was a faulty one.

Do you think you can ignore my argument since it uses the premise that viruses exist? Do you think you should use that same standard for every other argument? Why do you accept some arguments that are premised on viruses existing and not other arguments that are premised on them existing?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I take what they have to say into account, just as I take what the FBI has to say into account. I trust neither implicitly.

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Apparently you didn't notice that the quote I made above was actually -from- the Mueller report. Furthermore, the Mueller report is hardly the only source of information when it comes to the evidence, or lack thereof, that Trump colluded with Russia.

You have already admitted that you don't read most of the things you quote from. You appear to read selective bits that confirm your bias and ignore the rest. The fact that you are now repeating false claims about what is in the Mueller report only further confirms you can't tell fact from opinion. What evidence do you have for your belief that Seth Rich took documents from the Clinton campaign?

It -can- be. Lies can also work as well. At the end of the day, a civil suit, or any other suit, is won or lost based on what a jury, a judge or a panel of judges decide. And while I imagine we'd both like them to always decide in a way favours the correct party, the sad fact is that that's not always what happens.

Civil suits don't even make it to a jury if the truth is not what one side claims. A simple filing of that evidence to the judge will cause the suit to be thrown out for lack of evidence on the part of the plaintiff. Trump's lawsuit against Hillary et all was thrown out before reaching a jury for that reason. Fox had no credible evidence that Seth Rich took the documents. The Rich family had evidence that it was the Russians.

I find it sad how naive you can be. Truth is not something you can just wave around like a magic wand and all will be right in the world. I think William F. Buckley came out with a good line for the truth:

“Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.”

Source:
https://quotes-cards.com/truth/truth/

You appear to be immune to her charms. Finding the truth requires the ability to tell fact from fiction, to tell fact from opinion. Finding the truth means you don't select only those facts/opinions that support your bias. You clearly ignore many facts to live in your world.

 

[Scott]

You frequently see things in a way that is far too black and white, when this world is filled with colour. Reading part of an article is not the same thing as not reading an article at all. Similarly, one can agree with some points of an article without agreeing with others.

As McRocket rightly pointed out in post #414, the above is a clear ad hominem attack, something which you've done a fair amount of times. You've provided no evidence that I have no beliefs. I tolerate these ad hominems from you because you -also- provide a fair amount of evidence and reasoning for your beliefs, which is the life's blood of any good discussion where 2 sides disagree on a given subject. As you know, I have even come to find some of your reasoning to be sound, for instance on your point that a logical argument doesn't necessarily mean it's true- it all depends on the premise(s).

So your beliefs move simply based on how much the ruble is worth?

Where do you get these random non sequiturs?

I have presented evidence that your beliefs move around quite a bit.

You must have presented it elsewhere. I certainly haven't seen it.

If you truly believed that viruses did not exist then you should reject every argument that uses a premise that they do exist.

If someone believes that a particular virus doesn't exist, I'll take that as a good starting point.

Your ability to accept the premise that viruses do exist proves that your belief they don't exist is not a true belief.

I suspect that somewhere along the line you got deeply confused as to my stance. I haven't believed that contagious viruses exist for over a year now. I say contagious viruses because I ran across a site whose author believes that viruses exist, just that they aren't contagious. Ultimately, people can label what they see in their microscopes whatever they wish. If he wants to continue labelling them viruses, I'm alright with that, the point is that they're not contagious. The guy's site is here:
https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/

Personally though, I believe that the mainstream in the "there are no contagious viruses" group of professionals believe they're exosomes and perhaps other types of microbes and they go for the idea that what's seen in microscopes shouldn't be labelled viruses at all. As mentioned previously, this group is perhaps best exemplified by their written statement along with their names at the end of said statement, which can all be seen here:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

I'm certainly willing to debate people like yourself who -do- believe that viruses exist, though, and take a look at any evidence you wish to provide that you believe furthers your case.

 

[Scott]

Many U.S. citizens were certainly killed on 9/11. However, the FBI has admitted that they had no hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

Once again proving you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

Are you denying that the FBI said they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

I am saying you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So do you believe that it's an opinion that the FBI stated that they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?

 

[Scott]

I imagine you're referring to my father once telling me that the lack of evidence does not mean there is evidence of its lack. From what I remember, you seemed to disagree with his statement last time around. In any case, I myself think the statement needs a bit of modification. It all depends on why there is a lack of evidence. If one has not looked for the evidence and there is no other plausible explanation, that'd be one thing. In this case, however, I've found a much more plausible explanation- that 9/11 was a false flag operation and Bin Laden was set up as the patsy.

Of course you found it more plausible. Did you also know that birds aren't real and they are drones used by the CIA to monitor people like you?

I wonder if you even know the origins of that theory. I'll fill you in just in case:
**
Birds Aren't Real is a satirical conspiracy theory which posits that birds are actually drones operated by the United States government to spy on American citizens.[2][3][4][5] In 2018, journalist Rachel Roberts described Birds Aren't Real as "a joke that thousands of people are in on."[3]

Background

Poster inspired by the movement at the 35th Chaos Communication Congress conference in 2018
Peter McIndoe created the satirical conspiracy theory "on a whim" in January 2017. After seeing pro-Trump counter-protestors at the 2017 Women's March in Memphis, Tennessee, McIndoe wrote "Birds Aren't Real" on a poster and improvised a conspiracy theory amongst the counter-protestors as a "spontaneous joke". A video of McIndoe at the march went viral, which started the satirical movement.[2][6] In 2017, he posted on Facebook: "I made a satirical movement a few months ago, and people on Instagram seem to like it a lot." He later disclaimed the post, saying it was written by a staffer who was fired,[3] and did not admit until 2021 that he did not truly believe the conspiracy.[2][7]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren't_Real

An article on Peter McIndoe, as to when and why he started it:
Who is Peter McIndoe, founder of the 'birds aren't real' movement? | hitc.com

 

[Scott]

If the CIA says they can't release or confirm or deny that they have evidence that Osama Bin Laden released that tape how does that prove Osama is not on the tape?

How did we go from the FBI admitting they had no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 to you suddenly asking me the above question? In any case, would you mind specifying the tape that you're referring to? It's not like there's only been one alleged recording of Osama bin Laden over the years. Wikipedia has a list of all the alleged video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden since 9/11 here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

I guess you are proving once again you don't bother to read your own sources.

Always with this black and white notion of reading an article or source. As I've mentioned before, there is such a thing as -partially- reading a source of information. Anyway, I went back to where this all started and found the passage that you're referring to:

**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.

 

[Scott]

In the case of Iraq, Iraq attacked Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein did, yes, but only after consulting with US Ambassador April Glaspie, who told him that the U.S. 'had no opinion' on Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait. rense.com has a good article on the subject that suggests that Saddam was suckered into attacking Kuwait by the U.S.:

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Even so, Bush 41 didn't go so far as to occupy Iraq for several years. His son would, though.

ROFLMAO. So the US made Russia attack Ukraine and made Saddam attack Kuwait. Yeah. You must be a logical thinking mouse.

Did you read the article I linked to above? I had only read a bit of it, but I decided to read through more of it this time. It turns it, it includes a long transcript of a dialogue between Saddam Hussain and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Based on my reading, my view of what she said has changed. While it's true that she said that she had "no opinion" of Iraq's future intentions with regard to Kuwait, there are some nuances that need to be pointed out. I'll quote the part of the transcipt that includes her "no opinion" remark, but then continue with what she said aftewards:

**
***** GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

***** GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Proof? I haven't even seen you show -evidence- for your assertion. What's more, I've been doing the heavy lifting here, providing article after article, frequently quoting them with evidence for my claims, whereas you tend to opt more for sound bites and insults, with some exceptions. Yes, I don't always read the articles in their entirety, but I can always go back to them if you reference a point in them and make it clear where you got the information.

 

[Scott]

What immediately springs to mind is, why did James Baker instruct their official spokesperson to emphasize the instruction that the U.S. had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait"? I imagine you can agree that this certainly didn't seem to be true -after- Iraq invaded Kuwait. So what changed? Or perhaps nothing changed, and James Baker's instruction was made in order to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait?

Did the US tell Iraq to invade Kuwait? Did they order them to invade Kuwait?

We can agree that the U.S. did neither of those things.

The leap to the US tricked them into invading is a pretty long one. Are you sure they weren't trying to trick them into attacking Egypt since Egypt is an Arab country.

I'm not actually sure that the U.S. was trying to trick Iraq into attacking Kuwait, but I think it's rather clear how some have come to that conclusion. I just quoted what April Glaspie was reported to have said, but it seems you've already forgotten a rather relevant part as to the focus of April Glaspie's remarks. Requoting, and bolding the relevant part:

**
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
**

Source:
How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam Into Invading Kuwait | rense.com

 

[Scott]

I find it fortuitous that you should bring up Texas, because Texas' history shares a lot of similarities with the history of the Donbass republics. Originally, Texas was mexican territory. A fair amount of Americans settled there, however, and the population decided that they wanted to become independent from Mexico, creating the Republic of Texas. As can be imagined, Mexico was not pleased with this development and began to wage a war with this rebellious region of their country. In time, the Republic of Texas held a vote to join the U.S.- the population voted to do so and the U.S. formally annexed Texas. Again, Mexico was not happy and went to wage war with Texas again.

However, now that Texas was part of the U.S., the U.S. responded in kind. Not only did they hold Texas, they took a large chunk of other Mexican regions as well, perhaps to discourage them from attacking territory it had claimed again.

Tell me, don't you find a lot of this strikingly similar to what's happened in Ukraine, with the Donbass republics substituting for the Republic of Texas, Russia substituting for the U.S. and Ukraine substituting for Mexico?

You left out a lot of the history of Texas. They were originally owned by Spain before they fought for independence from that rule. Then Texas also tried to declare their independence from the US and the US went to war to keep them as part of the US. And Texas is still part of the US. Shouldn't we rely on more recent history as our comparison point?

Not in this case, simply because of the many similarities between the current war in Ukraine and the war to determine the fate of Texas back when it was still ostensibly a territory of Mexico, up through its annexation by the U.S. and the U.S.'s defeat of Mexican troops who didn't agree with the claim.

I think the most important part was the Texas referendum wherein citizens of the Republic of Texas decided to join the U.S. This is comparable to the referendum that Crimea held back in 2014 to rejoin Russia, the referendums in the Donbass republics to become independent Republics and the new Russian directed referendums in 4 Ukrainian regions wherein the populations reportedly decided to join Russia. Ultimately, I believe that the people in these war torn regions should be allowed to choose their own path. Don't you?

 

[Scott]

That's like showing someone a picture of a narwhal's horn and asking from what animal it comes from. If I were to then say that I don't know what animal it comes from, you could then triumphantly proclaim that it comes from a unicorn, and that that's the "prevailing consensus" and thus it must be true.

Except I couldn't truthfully say that the prevailing consensus is that it came from a unicorn.

No, not in this day and age, but you could if we were living in medieval times:
In medieval Europe, narwhal tusks were believed to be the horns from the legendary unicorn, and Vikings were probably selling them for tremendous amounts of gold | thevintagenews.com

My point is that just because something is the prevailing consensus doesn't mean that it's true. You yourself made this point by pointing out that just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true. It's the old argumentum ad populum argument.

There are several facts pointing to viruses existing, whether you refuse to call them viruses or not.
1. People get sick from something that is not a bacteria

I agree. But contagious viruses don't need to be the causal agent. As an example, Jon Rappoport makes a compelling case that pollution was the actual cause of people getting sick from "covid" in an article I've cited previously:
Big one: Origin story of China epidemic falls apart completely | nomorefakenews.com

2. The sickness can be spread in some way

Sure. Pollution spreads far and wide, so it makes sense that as it spreads, so would those falling sick from it.

3. the sickness spread can be prevented by using measure to mitigate the transfer of some invisible organism

Again, no need for it to be an invisible organism. Pollution can certainly be invisible.

4. Electron microscope pictures exist of something in those people that isn't in other people.

Now -here- is where the group of doctors I've noted come in. They have made a fairly simple 2 page statement to those who believe in viruses, where only 2 steps are required to prove that the Cov 2 virus exists. Feel free to take a look:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

How do you think the human body defends itself from viruses and bacteria?

You haven't even provided decent evidence that viruses exist. Right now, all you've got going for you is the "prevailing consensus". There was once a "prevailing consensus" that the earth was flat. I'm sure you'd agree that it was a faulty one.

Do you think you can ignore my argument since it uses the premise that viruses exist?

If contagious viruses don't exist, I think you'd agree that your previous statement would lose all validity. So let's see if we can first agree on whether viruses exist.

Do you think you should use that same standard for every other argument? Why do you accept some arguments that are premised on viruses existing and not other arguments that are premised on them existing?

Show me a case where I accept an argument that requires the viruses exist and you'd have a case.

 

[Scott]

I take what they have to say into account, just as I take what the FBI has to say into account. I trust neither implicitly.

Proving once again you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Your response is a non sequitur.

Apparently you didn't notice that the quote I made above was actually -from- the Mueller report. Furthermore, the Mueller report is hardly the only source of information when it comes to the evidence, or lack thereof, that Trump colluded with Russia.

You have already admitted that you don't read most of the things you quote from.

I've admitted no such thing.

You appear to read selective bits that confirm your bias and ignore the rest.

When I read articles with an interest of furthering a case I'm making in an argument, I read as much of the article as I think is necessary to do so. Based on what I've read from others, I tend to do more of it than most if not all the other people I debate with.

The fact that you are now repeating false claims about what is in the Mueller report

I literally quoted a passage from the Mueller report. Once again, the passage is this:
**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

This passage can be found in the source that you yourself provided:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report

I then commented on it, saying the following:
**
I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.
**

It's all there in post #364:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5401546#post5401546

What evidence do you have for your belief that Seth Rich took documents from the Clinton campaign?

Many journalists have suspected this. Here's an article on the murder of Seth Rich that I thought was interesting:
Who Really Killed Seth Rich? | American Thinker


An interesting excerpt from the article:
**
The DNC denied the FBI access to the actual DNC servers. A real investigation wouldn't have allowed this – another big red flag. Again, what if the DNC hack was a local leak delivered by hand to Assange?

Seth Rich reportedly, a Bernie Sanders supporter with IT experience, was working for the DNC. Rich had access to the DNC server. Rich most likely learned that Hillary was sandbagging Sanders. Rich was attacked and shot to death, leaving a bar in a nice area of D.C. late at night. Nothing was taken from Rich in this robbery. The DC Metro P.D. so far has kissed this death off as a random robbery.

The FBI denied any knowledge of Rich’s murder. After a long series of FOIAs by Judicial Watch and others, including suing the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI finally admitted it had files on Rich's murder. Later the FBI did disclose it had Rich's laptop. Arguably, a game of cat and mouse with overtones of the FBI lying by omission:

After more than four years of repeated denials from the FBI that they had searched their files and had no information on Seth Rich, we now know that was a blatant lie. It was David Hardy, a FBI Senior official, who put that denial in writing in September 2017. . . . He stated under oath that the FBI had no records on Seth Rich . . .. [source]

**

It -can- be. Lies can also work as well. At the end of the day, a civil suit, or any other suit, is won or lost based on what a jury, a judge or a panel of judges decide. And while I imagine we'd both like them to always decide in a way favours the correct party, the sad fact is that that's not always what happens.

Civil suits don't even make it to a jury if the truth is not what one side claims. A simple filing of that evidence to the judge will cause the suit to be thrown out for lack of evidence on the part of the plaintiff.

You seem to be confusing evidence with truth. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of false evidence. Just in case, here's an article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence

Fox had no credible evidence that Seth Rich took the documents.

This may be true. It doesn't mean he didn't do it, however.

The Rich family had evidence that it was the Russians.

Can you quote and link to it?

I find it sad how naive you can be. Truth is not something you can just wave around like a magic wand and all will be right in the world. I think William F. Buckley came out with a good line for the truth:

“Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.”

Source:
https://quotes-cards.com/truth/truth/

You appear to be immune to her charms. Finding the truth requires the ability to tell fact from fiction, to tell fact from opinion. Finding the truth means you don't select only those facts/opinions that support your bias. You clearly ignore many facts to live in your world.

Making claims is not the same as proving them, or even providing evidence for them. I suggest you stick more to evidence and less to vague claims with little if any evidence to back them up.