Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Nuclear attack in Syria?

Posted 1 year ago on May 11, 2013, 4:11 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

That's what Gordon Duff claims and that video evidence supports:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/11/was-syria-nuked/

84 Comments

84 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Here is your lesson in nuclear physics: { MY COMMENTS }
From your article’s first paragrph:


Foreword by editor: We have covered at length the suspected illegal, undeclared use of a nuclear weapon {LIE}

WIKI: “A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion.”

in Fallujah, Iraq, through the research of Dr. Chris Busby of the UK. He took hair and tissue samples from kids born with birth defects in Fallujah, and their parents, and determined that they had been exposed to enriched uranium.

{ Uranium is 99% U238 which cannot fission; fissionable U235 is only 1% and must be concentrated to make a bomb – which is very hard to do. . All uranium is very heavy and is slightly radioactive – it can be used to penetrate deep underground or to pierce armored tanks because it is so heavy }

Now bear in mind that we are talking about an actual nuclear bomb, {LIE}

WIKI: “A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion.”

probably a neutron type device, {LIE}

{ there is no “neutron device weapon”. Decades ago, there were ideas about some kind of “neutron bomb” that would irradiate and kill everything for miles without destroying property or leaving residual radiation – it does not exist }

not depleted uranium which is also problematic,
but not anything like an actual nuke.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

From wiki on the neutron bomb. (quote) Conception of the neutron bomb is generally credited to Samuel T. Cohen of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who developed the concept in 1958.[5] Testing was authorized and carried out in 1963 at an underground Nevada test facility.[6] Development was subsequently postponed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 following protests against his administration's plans to deploy neutron warheads in Europe. President Ronald Reagan restarted production in 1981.[7]

Three types of ERW were built by the United States.[8] The W66 warhead, for the anti-ICBM Sprint missile system, was deployed in 1975 and retired the next year, along with the missile system. The W70 Mod 3 warhead was developed for the short-range, tactical Lance missile, and the W79 Mod 0 was developed for artillery shells. The latter two types were retired by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, following the end of the Cold War.[9][10] The last W70 Mod 3 warhead was dismantled in 1996,[11] and the last W79 Mod 0 was dismantled by 2003, when the dismantling of all W79 variants was completed.[12]

Besides the United States and Soviet Union, France and China are understood to have tested neutron or enhanced radiation bombs in the past, with France apparently leading the field with an early test of the technology in 1967[13] and an "actual" neutron bomb in 1980.[14] The 1999 Cox Report indicates that China is able to produce neutron bombs,[15] although no country is currently known to deploy them.

Considerable controversy arose in the U.S. and Western Europe, following a June 1977 Washington Post exposé describing U.S. government plans to purchase the bomb. The article focused on the fact that it was the first weapon specifically intended to kill humans with radiation.[16][17] Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory director Harold Brown and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev both described the neutron bomb as a "capitalist bomb", because it was designed to destroy people while preserving property.[18][19] (unquote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

As for depleted uranium being used because it is "heavy", that's also wrong. It is used in tank-busting rounds because it ignites on impact, burning its way through the toughest armour, and the resulting "spall" cloud will kill anyone inside the armoured vehicle, either by burning, or radiation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8

Jan 23, 2009 - Uploaded by talkingsticktv Talk by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project speaking about depleted uranium before his death from exposure.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

sort of-
the trigger for any "thermonuclear bomb" is a "thermal trigger" which is a fission A bomb - like the one we used in Hiroshima. It creates enough heat to cause a FUSION reaction in the hydrogen in the bomb - fusing two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom + a huge amount of energy
The "neutron" type of "H-bomb" has extra components & is designed to release a maximum amount of neutron radiation. an H-bomb can be as large as 15,000,000 tons of TNT the Hiroshima A-bomb was 50,000 tons of TNT
so the smallest ""neutron bomb" blast would be much larger than the
one bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Builder...gotta love this thread. There are at least 3 Thrassy personas debating each other..loneranger, sockpuppet and lordoftruth. This site has become a place for a few laughs, not much else.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm just filling in time while breakfast cooks.

I see Multi-man has made an appearance.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

Sockpuppet is VQ.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Gordon Duff asked the question, "Was Syria Nuked?" I think its an important question to ask. Whether its true or not, I think its important to be concerned about this. I think its possible that general warfare could break out in the world today, and that it would probably start in Syria or Iran.

[-] 0 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

You mean you follow your psychopath right-winger fear mongering conspiracy theory leader LaRouche in his twisted thinking that there will be a nuclear war in Syria or Iran and that this is imminent.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=LaRouche.Psychopath

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Would Duff also ask the question -
"Was Syria invaded by little green men?"
or
"Was Syria invaded by Hatian warriors?"

why ask a question that any sane person knows the answer to?

everyone knows Syria was bombed by Israel
everyone knows Israel did not use a "nuke"

I believe ( but do not know ) that Israel bombed shipments of Iranian arms headed to Lebanon & Hezbollah

The questions I would ask are
"What does Hezbollah need advanced Iranian arms for?"
"Why is Assad supporting a terrorist group like Hezbollah?"

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Most people know almost nothing about what's going on in Syria.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Specifically, do you know why Israel bombed what in Syria?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

No, I don't, but I think Syria is a critical hot spot in the world, so it is important to ask such questions about it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Did they capture or kill BigFoot ? Or irradiate it into the IncredibleFoot?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

This ia a quintessential example of 1984 propaganda - redefining words to spread lies.

The term "nuclear attack" means an attack with a bomb that explodes
using the process clearly defined in physics as "fusion" or "fission".
All atoms in the universe, are by definition are "nuclear" -
so according to this post, the three stoges "nuclear attacked" with cream pies

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Why do you think he would want to spread lies?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The same reasons willard & rush & koch & paul ryan & john boehner & mark sanford spread lies - power and money

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't think Gordon Duff is rich, and don't see how he would financially benefit from this, that is, unless you think the little publicity he gets from this is some how financially beneficial.

From what I've seen, a lot of military officers, just like OWS people, are worried about the world today, and their concern extends more into the military arena, which they happen to be personally involved with.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I thought you were asking about Larouche

www.laroucheplanet.info This website about the "LaRouche phenomenon" is unique because it is written by those who know him best: the ex-members of his Organization. They have spent decades of their lives working with and for him. They knew him personally and helped to build his destructive cult. It is therefore an insider view on that Bizarro Planet of Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche Junior... We hope this site will give those who are intrigued, puzzled or distressed by LaRouche and his Organization, a better "picture" of what would otherwise appear confusing or creepy. It is a sort of LaRouche's (ideological) colonoscopy...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Everybody will have some people who say bad things about them. There are also important people from around the world who say good things about him.

In China, for example, he's generally referred to as a "great American economist", when he's featured in articles in their newspapers. He's received favorable press in many countries around the world such as Russia, in Asia and in South America.

As far as him being rich, my understanding is that he basically has no personal money, since he would inevitably be sued by the establishment over trumped up charges. He keeps a small amount of cash on hand and is provided with money he needs by his associates. But he's nothing like rich as some people are.

What is Larouche active with today? Mostly mobilizing his organization to lobby for Glass-Steagall, as he has always been a supporter of it:

http://larouchepac.com/node/26513

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

OK- I'm glad he is fighting for one good issue.
But I see him on the wrong side of too many issues
he's pro Reagan's SDI
he's anti- Green etc

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

SDI would have been a system that would have prevented any possible nuclear war in the world, while upgrading the world's economy. If it was done, we probably wouldn't be going through our present economic crisis.

Also, that kind of system could eventually be used to shoot down the kind of asteroid that recently harmed many people in Russia. Some day, our world will be threatened by major asteroids or comets, like the one that made the dinosaurs extinct, and we'd better be ready to protect ourselves from them.

As for being anti-Green, Larouche supports NAWAPA, the project that would bring 20% of the unused fresh water from runoff in Alaska, down to the central American desert, creating a vast agricultural region.

Once used in agriculture, the evaporated water would be distributed throughout the US as rainfall, promoting the abundant growth of "greenery" and the development of ecosystems all throughout the US. In this sense, I think he's more green than anybody.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"SDI would have been a system that would have prevented any possible nuclear war in the world, while upgrading the world's economy. If it was done, we probably wouldn't be going through our present economic crisis."

1- I have a degree in physics and although I do not work in SDI research, virtually all physicists agree that there is NO technology that would work. You may remember the idea that even if America could develop this technology and deploy it, the USSR would be forced to attack us before we could protect ourselves. Reagan - when confronted with this obvious fact - said he would give the technology to every country.
2- It was an anti-balistic-missle shield - that would not have stopped either WTC attack or Boston.
3- Can you name ANY physicists who advocate an SDi who did not profit from it? 4- We would not have a financial crisis today because all of the world's assets would be owned by defense contractors.


In 1986 An open letter to Congress criticizing the Strategic Defense Initiative Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), U.S. government program responsible for research and development of a space-based system to defend the nation from attack by strategic ballistic missiles (see guided missile). ..... Click the link for more information. (SDI), signed by more than 1,600 scientiss and engineers--all current or former employees of federal laboratories or of defense contractors--was handed to Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and Daniel J. Evans Daniel Jackson Evans (born October 16 1925) served three terms as governor of the state of Washington from 1965 to 1977, and represented the state in the United States Senate from 1983 to 1989.
The letter charged that SDI's stated goal--to render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete--is not feasible in the foreseeable future and risks jeopardizing arms control arms control

Limitation of the development, testing, production, deployment, proliferation, or use of weapons through international agreements. Arms control did not arise in international diplomacy until the first Hague Convention (1899). However, it is the program's cost, in terms of both researchers and dollars, that the researchers appeared to object to most.

Explains Novel Prize-winning physicist Robert Wilson Robert Wilson may refer to:
head of radio physics at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, N.J., and one of the signers, "We're all in favor of a very strong national defense. And we think that our proposal will strengthen that defense, not weaken it." According to Pierre Hohenberg, head of theoretical physics at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., the signers of this letter don't want the United States to abandon SDI. Rather, "we are asking for a scaledown" in its size, to a level appropriate to exploratory research, not development, he says.

The scientists didn't recommend a specific dollar value for that scaledown. However, says group organizer Daniel Fisher, also of the Murray Hill Laboratory, one should compare the administration's SDI budget request of $4.8 billion for the coming fiscal year with, for example, what the administration would offer the National Science Foundation -- $1.5 billion. Considering that the foundation is one of the federal government's largest supporters of basic research budget of $2.75 billion "is more than certainly adequate."

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I used to know a physicist who worked in national defense. He wholeheartedly believed in SDI.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you worked there, you would support getting paid too

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

He got paid with or without SDI.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

Provide a name and references so we can check this out. Or else, it means nothing.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't care whether it means anything to you or not, considering that I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

You don't care about evidence. You demonstrate it time and time again. You are a cult follower. A LaRouchie.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

So what evidence have you provided here? None. All that you do is make baseless accusations.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Written by the same person who did the video. Not the most credible source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Today

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Unlikely. Even conventional explosives produce a mushroom cloud. The lightening he claims are probably bursts from exploded ordinance.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The link posted above by Nevada1 seems to suggest otherwise.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Read my reply to Nevada1.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I see, but to be honest, I don't really consider Wikipedia to be the most reputable source.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Very interesting, thanks.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

You're just lazy. Wikipedia is a great starting place for research. Most articles contain a lot of references. You're just lazy to check out those references. It's too easy to dismiss Wikipedia. It's a myth that it's a source of lesser quality. Many studies were made on this topic and found that Wikipedia was often better than some encyclopedias. There are advantages and disadvantages. However, because it articles have references you can do a follow up.

Ironically, you believe the Larouche website to be a good source of info. This is extremely laughable. Essentially, they are the subjective opinions of one man. You need to vary your reading.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Larouche is a great source of info.
On his site, not once have I seen his name misspelled.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

So far, I see no reason to consider your opinion as anything other than gibberish.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

I know, you only consider the opinion of Larouche. That's your problem. Your mind is fed by one source. And, like I said, there have been professionally done studies showing Wikipedia's worth. It's not my opinion.

http://library.blogs.delaware.gov/2013/05/05/is-wikipedia-a-reliable-source/

A short excerpt since you only read Larouche:

"Based on their [Nature's] review, the average Wikipedia article contained 4 errors or omissions; the average Britannica article, 3. Only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Encyclopædia Britannica. The study concluded: “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries”, although Wikipedia’s articles were often ‘poorly structured’.”

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

How do you know what I consider? You don't, you just make a judgement based on the few things you've read here, but you don't really know me at all.

There are many people's opinions that I consider both living and dead, people from around the world and people that have lived thousands of years ago. I consider the opinions of Leibniz and Plato, as well as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

So you say some studies have been done that prove your point? Personally, I believe that even a number of the most central scientific theories of today are falsities that were motivated purely by political or economic agendas.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

The only texts you ever link to are from the Larouche's site.

So you say some studies have been done that prove your point?

No, I said it wasn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of numerous studies that Wikipedia is of good quality.

Personally, I believe that even a number of the most central scientific theories of today are falsities that were motivated purely by political or economic agendas.

You believe that because you have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. What you believe is of no importance. Beliefs are boring. Knowledge is interesting. Belief is based on faith. Knowledge is based on evidence.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Knowledge is based on evidence you say? And what if that evidence is manipulated or its distribution is manipulated by very wealthy people? If its one study, or many of them, they all could be manipulated in some way or another.

Consider our society today, the vast disaster. How could this have happened if not for the manipulation of information on a wide scale? Many people believed in falsities publicized by the mast media, claiming to be the work of scientific experts.

Numerous studies say Wikipedia is good quality? I believe that our mainstream media and most of our universities are providing manipulated information. How else could our world have become so much of a disaster?

If truthful information was really made readily available, there's no reason that we and all of the world couldn't have a booming economy today.

We've had it before, as a result of the policies of such as FDR or JFK, national financing for the development of infrastructure or great scientific projects is what pays off in real economical terms.

But today, most US infrastructure is C or D rated. What do your scientific studies say about that?

[+] -4 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

More conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

If you distrust every institution, even though they publish scientific research papers which explain their findings which can be duplicated, then you simply don't care about evidence and proper research methodology. That will lead you nowhere fast.

And, it's dangerous. If you don't care about evidence, then Creationist have a reason to push for teaching Creationism in science class. Evangelicals have a reason to tell us that gay sex leads to more health hazards. Quacks have a reason to tell us that Baking Soda can cure cancer. A world where knowledge is not based on evidence, is a world made up of false knowledge. A very dangerous world indeed.

You think all the institutions and governments are plotting together to "destroy the world". Ludicrous. Childish. Simplistic.

What you fail to realize is that the world is messed up because things aren't easy! It's a very complex task to run an economy, to cure disease, etc... Sure, there are some people who profit with conspiracies, but these are usually not on a very large scale.

Your delusional thinking patterns are childish, simplistic and dangerous. You don't require evidence. You just point the finger and accuse governments and institutions of evil things without providing any evidence at all. It's people like you that would jail an innocent man of murder because you just don't care for evidence. Pathetic.

[-] 6 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo? What about the theories that got us into our currently disastrous situation? The theories of free trade and globalization were all touted by experts from the most acclaimed financial and economic institutions, and where have they gotten us?

I don't distrust every institution, and I believe that there is such a thing as real science. I'm not a creationist nor an evangelical, but I do know about Charles Darwin, who funded him and why. He worked for the British empire, and his job was to portray man as merely an animal, so that he could be bought and sold as an animal or put to work as a animal. Do you want to be owned or worked like an animal?

I don't think governments are plotting to destroy the world, but I do believe there is a financial oligarchy that controls governments worldwide through money and the private banks that they install and use to make usurious loans, to get countries in debt and under their control.

Its easy for you to call me childish, but you don't see the naivete of your own thinking. You think I don't require evidence, but I've read thousands of pieces of evidence for what I believe over the past ten years. Again you make a lot of suppositions about someone you don't even now. Pathetic.

[-] 6 points by gnomunny (5783) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"Whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth."----- former CIA employee, Michael Hasty.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Did you get the links I sent? If so, what did you think of the videos?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5783) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, I got the links, but I haven't had a chance to look at them yet. But I will soon and let you know. Hell, I might even look at them today. ;-)

Yeah, sometimes I'm a bit of a procrastinator. <understatement>

[-] 0 points by eterna (-93) from Montauk, NY 1 year ago

as in fast and furious and benghazi?

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

That's hilarious. I like how you finish the quote with an appeal to authority. The fact his, conspiracy theorists are no where near the truth because their research methods are highly flawed.

In any case, I'm really surprised at how many people on this site support the bad thinking of conspiracy theorists. They use their fantasies to push right-wing agendas, something Occupiers shouldn't be encouraging. Almost all the conspiracy theories of modern times, especially those in US, are started by right wingers.

Do you support right wingers like Alex Jones, or do you support left wing ideologies? Left wingers usually care about evidence and proper research. That's why they aren't into creationism, and into the lies that gay marriage is bad for society.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Sounds like you like to say whatever BS just pops into your mind. Some of Larouche's top associates are Jews, so how does that make him an anti-Semite?

And when have "Larouchies" tried to take over this sight? From what I've seen, I'm the only one that spends anytime here. I just post now and then, but often I get people thanking me for my posts, so you certainly don't speak for all people here.

Larouche is a conservative Democrat, he advocates the policies of JFK and FDR. If you think that's far right, it just shows what an extremist that you must be.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Aaaah, the Loan Arranger.

Let's see how many shill memes you managed to cram into that one post.

Five?? Pretty good, for a beginner.

I'd still be wanting more for the cash they're paying you.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

"...I do know about Charles Darwin, who funded him and why. He worked for the British empire, and his job was to portray man as merely an animal, so that he could be bought and sold as an animal or put to work as a animal."


No, really, you don't.

And Darwin was strongly against the impulses that congealed about Social Darwinism. He objected to slavery and was a strong Christian. Try reading any biography of the man.

He was educated by Church of England, which is the Anglican system. He went to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, at which point he believed the literal truth of what is in the King James Bible.

Complete works -- darwin-online.org.uk

Evolution has to do with the body of Man and with mental abilities.

The soul? Of course not. But tread lightly where you assert knowledge of mysteries. No one knows anything about the core mysteries of human religions. That is why they are mysteries. The best we are doing is forming sensible questions.

The CT lies are another matter. For the most part, large scale CT schemes that attract financial backing are set up to distract people from crimes. And all you have to do is look at China to see what happens where criminal gangs take over government.

The Red Guard children of Mao's cadres have set up a greed-driven system where 350,000,000 rural Chinese are working as "commuter" slaves, separated from their families to toil in factories to bring untold billions of wealth to the gangsters.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Nothing worthy of replying to here.

[-] 1 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

I love how conspiracy theorists just shut up when they are put in their place. What OccNoVi said doesn't comply with LaRouche mythology, so, oops, we have a mental short circuit.

Learn to think for yourself instead of always following your cult leader, Mr. LaRouche.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The real question is rather, do you believe everything that Larouche espouses or are you capable of independent thought? Where do you disagree?

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, there are some areas in which I believe he has blind spots. Those ideas are not relevant to this site, however.

[-] 0 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

You're a Larouchie. You follow the man's cult. It's unhealthy. He is a liar, an anti-semite, and a hard core right winger. Larouchies tried to over take Occupy. Shame on you guys. Occupiers care about truth, not conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Which areas are those?

[-] 1 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 1 year ago

Govts blindfold the public, therefore it's a Logical fallacy to dismiss conspiracy theories so conclusively.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"The fact that a massive amount of evidence is hidden from us is irrelevant and unrelated to us knowing the truth?"

You're assuming there is a massive amount of evidence. If the evidence is hidden, how can you judge it's size? Assumptions and suspicions are not fact. Determining truth depends on our careful examination of evidence from every point of view at every point in time. Anything less is just hot air.

"Therefore we should be content with the questionable truth extrapolated from limited evidence?"

There is no such thing as questionable truth. Truth can't be both true and false. Oil always separates from water.

If I had the key to unlock every secret our government possesses, I would gladly do it. Since that key does not exist, we will have to labor long and hard to forge a key that by right belongs to us, and finally unlock the door to this prison of illusion we call America..

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"The problem is not that there is no evidence. The problem is that it is hidden."

If we use suspicion as the only basis for the integrity of a claim, then any claim can be considered fact. Obviously this is not plausible. A logical conclusion can't be drawn from suspicion alone. It must be based on solid evidence.

Like Bush's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the hard evidence was not there because it was hidden. So just suspicion, and possibly pure deceit led us into a tragic war. We all know how that kind of logic failed, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and countless other horrors for millions.

[-] 0 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 1 year ago

WTF? Let me try to understand your logic.

  • The fact that a massive amount of evidence is hidden from us is irrelevant and unrelated to us knowing the truth?

  • Therefore we should be content with the questionable truth extrapolated from limited evidence?

[-] 0 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

The knowledge that govts hide information from the public is an established fact. If you were to claim otherwise, your premise would be based on a logical fallacy. If the subject of govt secrets is unknow to you, feel free to educate yourself by studying the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information

Sure, the government has classified information. I'm not questioning that. But, that's not the same has saying it is hiding information for specific events that conspiracy theorists claim to "research". For example, you cannot know if the government has classified information regarding The Boston Marathon bombings and the conspiracy theories that surround them.

In any case, saying the government is hiding evidence for a particular event leads to nowhere. If this evidence exists, you don't have it. So, you don't have anything. Just logical fallacies to explain that event.

Conspiracy theories are very dangerous my friend. They are the #1 danger facing America. Every day, more and more people get tricked by them and leave the world of reality to enter the world of conspiracy theory delusions. When that happens, the real problems of the world have less and less people to solve them, let alone recognize them.

But yes, right wingers want people to complete distrust the government, institutions, doctors, etc... When this happens the government won't have to do anything for the people since anything they would do would be refused on the grounds that the government cannot be trusted.

The truth is much more complex, and complexity is what Conspiracy Theorists try to avoid. They like simple cartoon like explanations.

[-] 0 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

The problem is not that there is no evidence. The problem is that it is hidden.

How do you know there is evidence if it is hidden?

[-] -1 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 1 year ago

The knowledge that govts hide information from the public is an established fact. If you were to claim otherwise, your premise would be based on a logical fallacy.

If the subject of govt secrets is unknown to you, feel free to educate yourself by studying the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"The problem is that the evidence is hidden from the public."

Exactly.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

How do you know evidence for a particular event is hidden? If you claim it's hidden it's because you haven't seen it. You're making an assumption and pretending it's a fact. This is what conspiracy theorists do. They use logical fallacies instead of evidence because they don't understand what are proper research methods.

[-] -2 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

Conspiracy theories are dismissed because they aren't based on evidence. We dismiss creationism as being scientific for the same reason. If you stop caring about evidence, then don't be surprised when right-wingers push their lies to stop gays from getting married, or women from being aloud to have abortions.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I think you should change your name to "DarkLordOf-Duh!".

[-] 1 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 1 year ago

Here we see more logical fallacy used in improper debate.

The "DarkLordOfTruth" states to SockPuppet33:" If you stop caring about evidence". Where clearly the DLOT exhibits apathy with govts secreting so much "evidence" from his lordship.

Another Logical Fallacy. This one is called "inconsistency"

[-] -3 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

I guess you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. If you think you do, could you tell us which logical fallacy you are referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[-] 1 points by Sockpuppet33 (-4) 1 year ago

DarkLordOfTruth

OK, let's look at the cavalier regard to proper debate the LoneRanger exibits in the above argument:

We see here where the LoneRanger starts off with the premise, "More conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo".

Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) Pigs can fly Argument Claim: Conspiracy theory is mumbo jumbo. : LoneRanger believes Conspiracy theories are Mumbo Jumbo, therefore Conspiracy theories are mumbo jumbo.

Next we can see LoneRanger using the tactic of "Begging the question"/statement Adhominen against Arturo. "If you distrust every institution"

This impies that Arturo "distrusts every institution". when Arturo clearly never stated that.

followed by:

You think all the institutions and governments are plotting together to "destroy the world". use of more adhominen logical fallacy

more:

What you fail to realize is that the world is messed up because things aren't easy!

Here we see the LoneRanger making a "Hasty Generalization", impling that the world is messed up solely because things aren't easy.

More Logical fallacy: This one is called "Moving the goal posts"

LoneRanger's premise is: "You don't require evidence. You just point the finger and accuse governments and institutions of evil things without providing any evidence at all."

The LoneRanger knows that the evidence is hidden by our govt from Arturo and uses the tactic of moving the goalposts.

We can see LoneRanger use non sequitur:

The evidence that would prove conspiracy theories true is hidden from us by our govt, therefore conspiracy theories are false..

LoneRanger closes his comment with: because you don't care for evidence. Pathetic.

This is ironic when LoneRanger is apathetic about the govt keeping unimaginable amounts of evidence from him.

The problem is not that there is no evidence. The problem is that it is hidden.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

What about the theories that got us into our currently disastrous situation? The theories of free trade and globalization were all touted by experts from the most acclaimed financial and economic institutions, and where have they gotten us?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Logical fallacy. You don't figure out the wrongs of a system or the wrongs of people with a bad research method. Conspiracy theories lead to nowhere except the idea that evidence is not important; a very dangerous concept indeed.

Your idea of Charles Darwin is lame. He simply studied nature and reported what he saw. His theory of evolution is a cornerstone in modern science. It has revolutionized many fields. Many cures exist because of it. Would you rather he lied and stated we were not descendant of other animals, that we were special? In fact, you don't know your history very well. In Darwin's time people from Africa were considered animals while Europeans were not. Africans were not considered as being human. Darwin's theory threw that out of the water. It made people realize that white people were not superior to Africans.

I don't think governments are plotting to destroy the world, but I do believe there is a financial oligarchy that controls governments worldwide through money and the private banks that they install and use to make usurious loans, to get countries in debt and under their control.

A boring NWO conspiracy theory. Again, we don't care what you believe. Some people believe in Santa Claus. That does not make it true. Be an adult and provide strong evidence for your claims. Evidence, not conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

You think I don't require evidence, but I've read thousands of pieces of evidence for what I believe over the past ten years.

What you find on conspiracy theory websites doesn't count as evidence.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

As a matter of fact, you don't know what I read, and I can't see how you would have possibly gotten the idea that I would find you a credible source of advice.

And what is it that you claim Larouche lies about anyway?

[-] -1 points by DarkLordOfTruth (-43) 1 year ago

You're a Larouchie. You follow him as if he were your cult leader. You believe all his conspiracy theories without caring about evidence. Whether you do this knowingly or not if of no matter.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Two wrongs don't make a right. Logical fallacy. You don't figure out the wrongs of a system or the wrongs of people with a bad research method. Conspiracy theories lead to nowhere except the idea that evidence is not important; a very dangerous concept indeed.

  • This is meaningless.

Your idea of Charles Darwin is lame.

A boring NWO conspiracy theory. Again, we don't care what you believe.

  • Often when I post here, a number of people tell me "thanks". They matter, you don't.

What you find on conspiracy theory websites doesn't count as evidence.

  • Your opinion about what counts as evidence doesn't count.
[-] -2 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

Try using another source than Larouche to support your claims. He is a conspiracy theorist and a cult leader. He's also a known liar. His sites are not good sources of information. I know you're a Larouchie stuck in his cult, but there are much better sources out there. It wouldn't hurt you to read other people once in awhile.

[-] -1 points by LoneRanger (-307) 1 year ago

More conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo by our site's number 1 conspiracy theorist. The goal is right-wing fear mongering.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=LaRouche.Psychopath