Blair's Cajones

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 12 Nov 2005, 15:38

Porty wrote:I honestly couldn't be sure. As far as I know there is even a huge questiion mark over the existence of Al Quaeda or rather it started as a figment and came into existence but only after 9/11.

You very quickly enter the wilderness of mirrors when you look at these things. I don't think they exist except an excuse to exert control here and abroad.
The pursuit of them is like a roadrunner cartoon with real explosions.

One day I must share my phoning the FBI story, which I did on the Sunday after 9/11. Weird but interesting.

Don't be a tease, cough up the tale

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 14 Nov 2005, 10:50

Porty. Please read and comment on the following article :

http://incentraleurope.radio.cz/ice/article/72663

Does reading this article make me a conspiracy theorist?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Nov 2005, 19:28

xxxx wrote:
Don't be a tease, cough up the tale

Its not that good and I worry in case I've told it before?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Nov 2005, 19:39

Dadaist wrote: Porty. Please read and comment on the following article :

http://incentraleurope.radio.cz/ice/article/72663

God, you are getting bossy.

There is no proof of the existence of the torture camps contained in the article but there appears to be some strong circumstantial evidence. My gut feel; is to assume the worst about the US enforcement agencies and if I had a free Â£50 bet at Ladbrokes, if they were taking bets on torture camp existence in Eastern Europe, I would bet yes. The US government doesn't believe in international law unless it totally suits their purpose, which is almost never. Having said that ,International Law is always going to be abused by the most powerful, regardless of political persuasion.

Dadaist wrote: Does reading this article make me a conspiracy theorist?

Do you mean you reading it or me reading it?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 14 Nov 2005, 20:18

So if you came to roughly the same conclusions and have the same thoughts as (presumably) those here you choose to call conspiracy theorists, doesn't that make you one as well?

I never go anywhere other than mainstream sources for information.

What have I done to be called a conspiracy theorist that you haven't ?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Nov 2005, 21:09

Dadaist wrote:So if you came to roughly the same conclusions and have the same thoughts as (presumably) those here you choose to call conspiracy theorists, doesn't that make you one as well?

What have I done to be called a conspiracy theorist that you haven't ?

Who have I called a conspiracy theorist and when did I call you one?

In any case, people who have theories about conspiracies, right or wrong are conspiracy theorists. I am definetly one, for example, I think the residents of Bath Place are conspiring to twist and abuse planning rules to suit their own ends and are encouraging others to do so using a cloak of deception.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Nov 2005, 00:07

http://porty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=120

You've used various terms to describe those POL members who have occasion to disagree with you on political grounds. (up til this point that is, as it's not like we've got a pet Tory to play with) I'm always happy to take on whatever crass mantle you decide fits this week as I feel a certain one-size-fits-all kinship with my fellow libertarians, even if "terrorist sympathiser" was an especially tight fit. "conspiracy theorist" seemed to be just another of these garments.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Nov 2005, 10:25

I have never used the term "terrorist sympathiser" no matter how much you wanted me to. I believe, but I cant be sure, that the same applies to conspiracy theorist.

rathbone · Post by **rathbone** » 15 Nov 2005, 10:45

Dadaist wrote: I never go anywhere other than mainstream sources for information.

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claude Cockburn

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Nov 2005, 10:46

"mainstrean sources" quite a loose description.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Nov 2005, 11:06

Porty wrote:"mainstrean sources" quite a loose description.

Such as?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Nov 2005, 12:37

Such as, its not a particularly well defined set of parameters for source definition. What does "mainstream" mean in this context?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Nov 2005, 13:05

Porty wrote:Such as, its not a particularly well defined set of parameters for source definition. What does "mainstream" mean in this context?

As far as I know, published (well known) newspapers and national press and tv agencies. Well established media outlets (like state radio stations).

To make sure, I usually look in more than one place.

The main site I use for war-related info is a "portal" and is called antiwar.com

The opinion pieces are usually rubbish, but they provide an amazingly rapidly-updated link to war-related pieces in (my definition) mainstream media sources.

I must say, I welcome a strict definition of all of our sources. I'm more than happy to require backup and verification of fact. Any standard you'd like to set is a good thing - for example, you're quite right to say that just reading something in SW isn't good enough - you're right, it isn't.

Each state organisation obviously will have a national bias, but if I want info on country X, then the last place I usually look is that country's media outlet - I'd much rather read country Y and country Z's take on it and then make up my own mind.

SWs opinions suck, but it *does* report stuff that is otherwise quite hard to find elsewhere. If you took it as gospel though and didn't read elsewhere (and also read it at arms length with a very heavy dose of cynicism) it's just a propaganda rag.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Nov 2005, 14:44

Your elaboration is more than adequate, thank you.