4 ms·

Since I just watched Chinatown for the nth time, this is fresh on my mind. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. applies here. We don't know what really happened a

Since I just watched Chinatown for the nth time, this is fresh on my mind. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. applies here. We don't know what really happened and we can't. These are people who lie and cover up for a living, even to each other. Even under oath.

pyth0 4y ago
I watched it for the first time a month back and was blown away. And the central conflict around water scarcity in CA is still incredibly relevant today. What a movie!
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  It really IS the perfect movie.
coliveira 4y ago
Exactly, every time you deal with info from CIA and related orgs, you need to understand that their job is to lie and deceive for a particular goal. There is no reason whatsoever to think that what they're saying is true, unless it is strongly corroborated by other facts and reports.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  That may be how they interpret their job description, but it's not the job the taxpayer pays them to do, certainly not when it comes to lying domestically.
fit2rule 4y ago
[dead]
esotericimpl 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NHQ 4y ago
If you want the answer for yourself, you need to demystify "terrorism", since that is the headline narrative from day one and to this day. When you grok what terrorism really is, the logical conclusion to who did the deed is to answer the question of who benefited, what motives, and look for evidence. Terrorism is a method of rulership over publics, not a tactic of war. Unless you consider the rule of terrorist ideology to be one of "at war with those under rule", but that is different model of thinking. Either way, terrorism comes down to low grade rule by mean and vicious people, the kind you would hope never to elect. Indeed, one might conclude as I have that terrorism is rule by the unelect. Terrorism is not a tactic of warfare, it is violent coercion. Even that much is obvious, for it coerces people to become defensive, scared, etc. Civilians are not the target of military for war. Never have been. Only pawns can be used to enact terrorism, for no individual has anything to gain by the act. No military strategy has ever used nor teaches terrorist methodologies. The response by the USA shows precisely why it is foolish, for it gains nothing to the attacker: no territory gained, only an enemy provoked. The accused actors had nothing to gain unless they were pawns for reward, but then that would mean they did not plan it, nor conceive of it from the base notion of coercion toward a benefit. Nor did the accused actors have a motive. The narrative already becomes convoluted beyond this point, so I pull out my Swiss Occum Razor and shave it back. That is when I realize how deep the ideological methodology of terror-ism must be. Terrorism is not the act of rogues and individuals, but this is what you are wanted to believe. Terrorism is the plan and rule of those found at the conclusion of logical procedure. Who benefited, what motives, following clues...
- a123b456c 4y ago
  Your theory falls apart if you assume some small percentage of people may act irrationally.
  - NHQ 4y ago
    You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs. Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process. Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning. Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification. It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.
hulitu 4y ago
Always look at who has to win from the events.

pyth0 4y ago

I watched it for the first time a month back and was blown away. And the central conflict around water scarcity in CA is still incredibly relevant today. What a movie!

AlbertCory 4y ago
It really IS the perfect movie.

coliveira 4y ago

Exactly, every time you deal with info from CIA and related orgs, you need to understand that their job is to lie and deceive for a particular goal. There is no reason whatsoever to think that what they're saying is true, unless it is strongly corroborated by other facts and reports.

TechBro8615 4y ago
That may be how they interpret their job description, but it's not the job the taxpayer pays them to do, certainly not when it comes to lying domestically.

fit2rule 4y ago

[dead]

esotericimpl 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

NHQ 4y ago

If you want the answer for yourself, you need to demystify "terrorism", since that is the headline narrative from day one and to this day. When you grok what terrorism really is, the logical conclusion to who did the deed is to answer the question of who benefited, what motives, and look for evidence. Terrorism is a method of rulership over publics, not a tactic of war. Unless you consider the rule of terrorist ideology to be one of "at war with those under rule", but that is different model of thinking. Either way, terrorism comes down to low grade rule by mean and vicious people, the kind you would hope never to elect. Indeed, one might conclude as I have that terrorism is rule by the unelect. Terrorism is not a tactic of warfare, it is violent coercion. Even that much is obvious, for it coerces people to become defensive, scared, etc. Civilians are not the target of military for war. Never have been. Only pawns can be used to enact terrorism, for no individual has anything to gain by the act. No military strategy has ever used nor teaches terrorist methodologies. The response by the USA shows precisely why it is foolish, for it gains nothing to the attacker: no territory gained, only an enemy provoked. The accused actors had nothing to gain unless they were pawns for reward, but then that would mean they did not plan it, nor conceive of it from the base notion of coercion toward a benefit. Nor did the accused actors have a motive. The narrative already becomes convoluted beyond this point, so I pull out my Swiss Occum Razor and shave it back. That is when I realize how deep the ideological methodology of terror-ism must be. Terrorism is not the act of rogues and individuals, but this is what you are wanted to believe. Terrorism is the plan and rule of those found at the conclusion of logical procedure. Who benefited, what motives, following clues...

a123b456c 4y ago
Your theory falls apart if you assume some small percentage of people may act irrationally.
- NHQ 4y ago
  You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that. Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs. Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process. Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning. Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification. It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.

hulitu 4y ago

Always look at who has to win from the events.