[SweatyPa1ms]

QUOTE (sivispacem)

I have watched some of the Zeitgeist documentaries. They're full of hyperbole, inaccurate information, bogus claims and downright lies. You'd honestly have to be a complete mug to buy more than a few words from them. Firstly, we'll come on to intelligence service personnel. In the UK, intelligence officers aren't permitted to reveal the extent of their affiliation with the organisation unless placed in a public position such as the directorate. Ergo, anyone claiming to have worked for the intelligence services should have their claims taken with a pinch of salt. There's no way of independently verifying these claims for anyone without DV-level security clearance, so they can be essentially discounted as reliable sources of information. Most spooks are incredibly unreceptive and unwilling to discuss their role- partially because they're bound by the Official Secrets Act and could face prison for discussing operational matters, and partially because the personalities who tend to be recruited into the services are typically introvert. For the most part, those who "claim" to have worked for the intelligence services are, like many of those who claim to be in the SAS, pure fantasists. And though I'm not hugely familiar with the regulations imposed on employees of the US intelligence services, I believe that similar maxims apply with regards to what they are permitted to actively discuss in public. There have been dozens of cases in living memory where individuals claiming an affiliation with the intelligence services have leaked "information" to the press, and then been discovered as frauds.

I'm sorry but your obviously lying about seeing the Zeitgeist documentaries just to get your point across because if you had seen them, you'd know these accounts i'm talking about aren't made from some deluded or schizophrenic people who think they are affiliated with the SAS or whichever other service. Also, did you ever think that those people who have been discovered to be frauds which you speak of were actually telling the truth but the agency they worked for just denied ever employing them?

QUOTE (sivispacem)

This puzzles me. How does shunning sensationalist media to focus entirely on available factual information make one ignorant? I'm perfectly capable of forming my own theories without a tin-foil-hat lunatic telling me what I should or shouldn't believe. Surely if the extent of your opinion is to side completely with one possibility or another, that demonstrates ignorance, as it indicates that you do not possess enough knowledge on a subject matter to form your own opinions, only that you are capable of parroting the ideas of other people?

This is EXACTLY what I mean. Where are your facts from? You aren't a forensics specialist that worked on the 9/11 attacks are you? You can form your own opinions but you cant gather all the evidence yourself to form that opinion, you have to base it off information you have been told by somebody else, just like me.

QUOTE (sivispacem)

The problem with many of these films is that they don't actually present evidence. They immediately shun the traditionally accepted theories- often based on misinterpretations of evidence, out-right lies and shady and unverifiable human sources, and then proceed to replace these ideas with theories of their own. Rather than supporting these theories with actual evidence, they tend to summarise how the theory could be true. Now, that doesn't represent evidence to me. I could say "God exists, because the world is complex and has natural order", but that's still a theory without supporting evidence. In the case of the conspiracy theorists and the sensationalist documentaries, they succeed only because a large proportion of the common man is incapable of identifying between the continuation and expansion of a theory and actual evidence.

You say "misinterpretaions of evidence, out-right lies and unverifiable resources"... isn't that the same with the mainstream media? It too is full of incompetence and sensationalism so you cant really go and question the integrity of a documentary you haven't even given the time of day to watch.

Maybe the government should start unveiling this so called evidence then, I might have something else to go off then. The footage of the "aircraft" (missile) that went into the Pentagon hasn't been released... why? Why not reveal to the world you have nothing to hide instead of making bogus reports like the "9/11 commission" which the public weren't even aloud to see . Its just a complete travesty. Nobody else has presented anything stonewall so how am I meant to trust it? If you can present to me that it wasn't an inside job beyond reasonable doubt then I will agree with you but until then i'm just gonna hold my ground.

QUOTE (=sivispacem)

I am personally involved in many of the subject matters we have been discussing- I've worked in the defence and security sector since finishing my undergraduate degree, in areas like policy analysis and capability studies, intelligence analysis, risk assessment, crisis response, security consultancy and policy advice. The versions of "truth" that I am discussing are based on available empirical evidence rather than hearsay and speculation. Not to blow my own trumpet, but in the case of most of the issues that have been discussed here, I possess considerably more knowledge, experience, a better understanding and a far better reputation than most "truthers". After all, I work in the sector, they just want to make a quick buck from it.

You misinterpreted my message. I meant the actual events themselves, not sectors of work. I respect you are probably quite knowledgable in your respective fields but that doesn't mean they automatically have any relevance with the events were talking about. No offense but i'm sure what were talking about here is way above your pay grade and everyone elses for that matter. I also have to add that the Zeitgeist documentaries are purely non profit and never advertise any kind of product. They do however have a vision of a better world "The Venus Project" and you can make donations on their website I think. By no means are they out to make "a quick buck" anyway. Afterall, they are trying to abolish the monetary system. It would be slightly ironic to say the least.

QUOTE (sivispacem)

As an aside, have you ever seen thermite in action? It's incredibly. dazzlingly bright. How do you suppose that such a large quantity was placed in a building and ignited without lighting up the entire New York skyline like a massive spot-lamp? How about activation? Thermite requires an incredibly high temperature to start it's reaction- much higher than the sympathetic detonation temperatures of most commercial or military explosives. It can't be ignited using standard chemical or electrical detonators, it requires a temperature around double that of burning Kerosene, so how do you suppose it was ignited? When used commercially, it tends to be ignited using Magnesium Ribbon or a blow-torch. However, for quantities large enough to demolish two super-skyscrapers, the number of individuals you would need in order to ensure a large enough proportion of the thermite was involved in reactions would be massive. Not to mention it's quite unreliable, even at the best of times. Thermite is affected by gravity. In order to sever the vertical supporting columns, it would have to burn horizontally. Now, I'm personally not quite sure how this would work. Sure, thermite has been used to cut horizontally before, but not on 20-foot-wide structural steel beams. It would be somewhere between physically impossible and utterly ridiculous to claim that, in this example, thermite was capable of demolishing two buildings under incredibly risky circumstances, using a technique that has never been used in demolition before or since, and acting against the known laws of physics. Sorry, but to me that just seems utterly absurd.

I dunno what to think about the thermite, it doesn't sound too absurd to me though. They could have engineered it themselves for achieving this exact effect. I've seen bigger breakthroughs in science and technology so it doesn't seem that unplausable. It has been used in demolitions before and if it was used to destroy those buildings, they probably tested it beforehand. Its not really that farfetched to be honest. By the way, it was 3 sky-scrapers not 2, you forgot building 7, probably the most important of them all. It wasn't even hit by an aircraft for crying out loud. No steel structure in history has ever collapsed due to fires. On 9/11, it happened 3 times apparently. Too coincidental if you ask me.

QUOTE (=sivispacem)

Anyway. I will NOT have this turn into another conspiracy theory thread. There's one of those just a few topics down. By all means take it to there, but this is veering wildly off-topic now.

I appreciate you want to keep on topic but you cant just come in here, tell it how you think it is, then undermime everyone elses opinions and tell them to move on. Its not cool. Aren't you a ledby on this section, set a good example . You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you? Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway .

This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:35

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

I'm sorry but your obviously lying about seeing the Zeitgeist documentaries just to get your point across because if you had seen them, you'd know these accounts i'm talking about aren't made from some deluded or schizophrenic people who think they are affiliated with the SAS or whichever other service.  Also, did you ever think that those people who have been discovered to be frauds which you speak of were actually telling the truth but the agency they worked for just denied ever employing them?

...How do you come to that conclusion? Because you feel that the roles of intelligence personnel in those films have been accurately represented. How can you make that judgement? Do you have any history of working alongside or in partnership with the intelligence community? Have you studied the operations, legislation and actions of the intelligence services, either in the US or in the UK? No? Then what are you basing your perceptions of the accuracy of individual's testimony on? Your own interpretations of what you feel an intelligence officer or analyst should look like, behave like and know? Well, there's your answer. I put it to you that your interpretation of the actions of intelligence agencies and the individuals that they employ is entirely based on what you have experienced in Hollywood blockbusters, the mass media and conspiratorial articles. That's not a fair or accurate representation of the actual work of intelligence and security organisations nor is it an effective indicator of the kinds of individuals who work for them. I'm not saying that no agent will come in from the cold and try and sell their story as best as they can within the confines of the legislative framework, but I am saying that the public perception of the intelligence services- a perception that you seem to take as verbatim, is on-the-whole incredibly inaccurate. Intelligence work is compartmentalised; few people know the entire back-story or detailed external information of the projects on which they are working. For the most part, much of it is extremely mundane- something else that isn't accurately represented. I put it to you that your entire argument is based on a misconception of the role, reach and mentality of intelligence agencies, and that this is the primary reason that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Intelligence agencies, for the most part, maintain plausible deniability. They don't actively discuss their employees in either a positive or negative light, they just refuse to comment.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

This is EXACTLY what I mean.  Where are your facts from?  You aren't a forensics specialist that worked on the 9/11 attacks are you?  You can form your own opinions but you cant gather all the evidence yourself to form that opinion, you have to base it off information you have been told by somebody else, just like me.

Where are my facts from? Well, it depends on which aspect to which you are trying to question my credibility. My understanding of al-Qaeda? Years of quite intensive and in-depth study into their hierarchy and structure (or lack thereof), the mentality and backgrounds of individuals who have been members or operated in close connection with the organisation, their aims, aspirations, goals and history. The technical aspect? Structural engineers, risk assessors and other personnel who do physical modelling, risk mitigation and engineering examinations for the insurance industry, including Marsh McLennan, who were the brokerage and risk assessment firm who operated from WTC1 and provided risk mitigation services for the building, more specifically Bowring who I've had the privilege of working alongside previously. The idea that a domestic intelligence agency couldn't have conducted the attacks? Well, I'm doing an MPhil in security studies, I've got a good knowledge of the operations and legislation of intelligence agencies, and also have a pretty good grasp of general strategic theory and international relations, which provide the framework in which these organisations operate. I feel I'm well qualified enough to speak on these issues, holding a greater understanding and credibility than many of the so-called "investigative journalists" who have disputed the official accounts of these incidents.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

You say "misinterpretaions of evidence, out-right lies and unverifiable resources"... isn't that the same with the mainstream media?  It too is full of incompetence and sensationalism so you cant really go and question the integrity of a documentary you haven't even given the time of day to watch.

Who says I'm gaining information from the mainstream media? You will scarcely find a critic more pessimistic about the representations of events portrayed in the partisan media than myself. Don't think for a moment that I treat them as a reliable source of information; that said, they're far more reliable than sensationalist bloggers and anti-establishment film-makers who can actively benefit from the spinning of falsehoods and yarns- far more so than the mass media who are subject to scrutiny and oversight possibly can.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

Maybe the government should start unveiling this so called evidence then, I might have something else to go off then.  The footage of the "aircraft" (missile) that went into the Pentagon hasn't been released... why?  Why not reveal to the world you have nothing to hide instead of making bogus reports like the "9/11 commission" which the public weren't even aloud to see  .  Its just a complete travesty.  Nobody else has presented anything stonewall so how am I meant to trust it?  If you can present to me that it wasn't an inside job beyond reasonable doubt then I will agree with you but until then i'm just gonna hold my ground.

The evidence is there- hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation, scores of videos and audio recordings. It's not even as if they're particularly difficult for a layman to get their hands on. Footage of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon has in fact been released, but of course the "truthers" claim that this is doctored. The 9/11 commission wasn't held behind closed doors, it's information, sources and final report have been subject to dozens of freedom of information requests and are easily available on the internet, as are the reports and discussions of hundreds of other people- from aircraft engineers to architectural surveyors to military personnel- that worked actively on the case and whose reports are also relatively easy to obtain. Why should the onus be on myself or anyone else who supports the official discussion of the events to prove that our story is right? We're not the ones doing the questioning; the weight of proof should lie on the shoulders of the "truthers", who have not only failed in their attempts to discredit the original story (through factual and technical inaccuracies, media manipulation and complete falsehoods- see, for instance, earlier discussion on Thermite as a perfectly representative example) but have also failed to provide any convincing evidence to support theories of their own. Hence why there are innumerable theories on the issue- surely if the evidence was there that the official account was incorrect, then the conspiracy theories would at least be capable of unifying around one alternate possibility, rather than everything from aliens to aquaman?

Incidently, if a missile hit the Pentagon, then how do you explain the large pieces of aircraft wreckage that were scattered around the vicinity of it? Lots of photo and films taken in the immediate aftermath of the impact show pieces of aircraft including large, multiple-tonne sections of engine and the entire APU, conveniently sunk into a couple of feet of grass and topsoil. How do you suggest they came to be there when the moment that the building was hit, the cameras started rolling?

You want me to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was not an inside job? Well, give me your version of events, and I'll demonstrate to you how it is impossible. Then you can re-assess your argument, make it again and I will do the same, until the only possible result you are left with is the official stance.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

You misinterpreted my message.  I meant the actual events themselves, not sectors of work.  I respect you are probably quite knowledgable in your respective fields but that doesn't mean they automatically have any relevance with the events were talking about.  No offense but i'm sure what were talking about here is way above your pay grade and everyone elses for that matter.  I also have to add that the Zeitgeist documentaries are purely non profit and never advertise any kind of product.  They do however have a vision of a better world "The Venus Project" and you can make donations on their website I think.  By no means are they out to make "a quick buck" anyway. Afterall, they are trying to abolish the monetary system.  It would be slightly ironic to say the least.

Are you honestly trying to imply that these "not-for-profit" organisations don't actually benefit from spinning lies? That's absurd, especially seen as you essentially accuse the mass media of doing exactly the same, and they have far less incentive and motive to do so. Pay-grade doesn't come into this, and nor does clearance. Do you honestly think that some lowly investigative journalist has access to any hard, conclusive, impartial or objective information that isn't available to the likes of anyone without an SC or DV badge? They don't, hence their focus is and always has been on employing human sources whose plausibility and accuracy, though questionable, is difficult to dispute as they're not in a position for their evidence to be critiqued. That's why these documentaries never name their sources- they bury it under layers of mystique and suggestion, but at the end of the day they act like the Tabloid media in the UK, and treat any information that supports their case as both factual and unbiased without ever allowing an outside observer the opportunity to question it's validity.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

I dunno what to think about the thermite, it doesn't sound too absurd to me though.  They could have engineered it themselves for achieving this exact effect.  I've seen bigger breakthroughs in science and technology so it doesn't seem that unplausable.  It has been used in demolitions before and if it was used to destroy those buildings, they probably tested it beforehand.  Its not really that farfetched to be honest.  By the way, it was 3 sky-scrapers not 2, you forgot building 7, probably the most important of them all.  It wasn't even hit by an aircraft for crying out loud.  No steel structure in history has ever collapsed due to fires.  On 9/11, it happened 3 times apparently.  Too coincidental if you ask me.

Not to be rude, but feeling that something "doesn't sound too absurd" is no justification for actually supporting it. It wasn't deemed too absurd for a scientist to hold the belief that the universe wasn't heliocentric, but that doesn't make it right. There are only so many advanced that can be made in something that is essentially powdered aluminium and rust, you can't really complicate that much further. And to the best of my knowledge, it's never been actively used in building demolition. Destroying military materiel such as artillery pieces and radar systems? Yep. But it's primary commercial purpose is for welding and cutting iron and steel for use in the transport industry (such as constructing rail tracks), and it's use in demolition has been limited to rendering materiel inoperable in combat scenarios. Use of it in active demolition is far beyond the scale and scope of these uses- and the sheer quantities involved (dozens if not hundreds of tonnes), plus the chaotic nature of the reaction and the difficulty in igniting it as a cutting agent (especially under extreme circumstances) render it a pretty idiotic idea. See here for some detailed scientific discussion of the quantities involved and the implausibility of it as an argument.

No steel structure has ever experienced the same impact forces, the same loss of intitial structural integrity or the same intensity or spread of fire as was experienced during 9/11. Trying to compare it to standard skyscraper fires is an utterly absurd proposition that utterly fails to take into account the considerable number of other important factors- the length of the burn, the chimney or furnace effect, the weakening rather than melting of structural steel, flash-over conditions, and the complete severing of structural support for large portions of the building. Find me another example of a structure surviving the same combination of factors and I'll see that as a rational argument. But as such an event doesn't actually exist, it's not and cannot therefore be seen as one. Now, WTC7 is one example of a flaw in the official story, but that's predominantly because people fail to actually understand the cause of it's destruction. The official report says something to the extent of "failure of structural integrity caused by debris, fire and other factors". Now, there are a number of other buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers which were not directly hit by aircraft or their debris, but were effectively levelled when the towers came down. Why? Well, the entire site was built on a single bedded reinforced concrete base over a hard bedrock, both of which transfer vibration and uneven physical forces very effectively and both of which are prone to cracking and failure under extreme conditions. One theory explained to me by an architectural surveyor who I used to work with indicates that the collapse of the two main towers caused sufficient damage to the hard structural surfaces underneath nearby buildings that their standard load-bearing was disrupted, causing partial collapses. In the case of WTC7, he postulates that the failure of the structural integrity of the foundations caused a transfer of mass onto columns and steel girders that had already been weakened by the fire, causing it's collapse. You see, that makes far more sense than the suggestion that it was controlled demolition, and all the fundamental flaws that accompany that theory.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

I appreciate you want to keep on topic but you cant just come in here, tell it how you think it is, then undermime everyone elses opinions and tell them to move on.  Its not cool.  Aren't you a ledby on this section, set a good example .  You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you?  Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway  .

Um, yes I can. Your right, it's not the sivispacem dictatorship, as entertaining as that would be, but as the area mod I have every right to split, merge, move and close topics which step outside the regulations for this part of the forum. I will happily let a bit of off-topic discussion take place, but when that derails and entire thread, it's gotta go somewhere else. Hence my moving it into the already existing (and clearly labelled) conspiracy theory thread.

[SweatyPa1ms]

I haven't had any sleep and i'm not replying to that now!

Please just give the Zeitgeist documentaries a chance. I know you haven't seen them yet. They hardly even focus on conspiracy theory, thats 1/3 of just one of the documentaries. I just want you to see them so you have a better perspective of where i'm coming from.

Zeitgeist: The Movie - Religion, War, Corruption

Zeitgeist: Addendum - Economics, Politics, The Venus Project

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - Behaviorial psychology, The Venus Project, Revolution

I'd recommend you watch them all...

I'll post a response to your message tomorrow... if I have to... I suppose .

[AlexGTAGamer]

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19)

You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you? Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway .

"The sivispacem dictatorship"? That's a bit harsh don't you think?

Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

[SweatyPa1ms]

QUOTE (AlexGTAGamer @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 22:48)

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 11:19) You do realise this is a debate/discussion section dont you?  Its not the sivispacem dictatorship, I certainly hope not anyway  . "The sivispacem dictatorship"? That's a bit harsh don't you think? Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

Sorry if it was harsh but I feel he's very condescending and narrow minded at times.

I dont know much about HAARP, I thought it was something to do with sound resignation?

Sorry if I seem insulting toward our british troops and everyone else involved in the consequences of 9/11 by seeing sense in these theories but I do it because I am a humanitarian. I want to know that if we are going to war against all these nations that we get into conflicts with, that its for good reason. I certainly wouldn't want millions of people dying for a small group of corrupt bankers and politians. Who am I to mistrust these people though, its not like any british politians or bankers have done anything bad in their history...oh wait.

We shouldn't even have war, its primitive. If everyone was educated properly in an equal society and a good environment, there would be no need for war. Sadly we dont live in that world. Its a ridiculous monetary system which has always been doomed to fail, thats why 2/3 of the world is in poverty. Were all gonna run out of oil soon anyway, maybe not in our lifetime but the prices are gonna keep going up until no-one can afford it...

...Speaking of which, watch the Collapse documentary, its mainly about how were running out of oil and everything is gonna be localised unless we act very fast.

Btw, I respect and support our brave troops and the 'help for heroes' charity but I just dont feel the war on terrorism is legal or moral. The government are the real terrorists putting us in fear of a false enemy. There isn't a threat, its all bollocks .

This post has been edited by SweatyPa1ms on Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 23:27

[AlexGTAGamer]

I feel the same way about politicians and bankers, they're all crooks really.

Also I'm going to try and remain calm with all of these conspiracy theories that are being presented as I really blew my top with the last conspiracy theories topic I went on that lead to its imminent lock. "Keep Calm and Carry On", that's my moto and I'll try to live up to it, just to let you know.

Let it begin. So to say.

[Irviding]

LOL @ Osama not having to do with 9/11.

Go study the history of Al-Qaeda. The planes plan started with KSM's nephew who gave it to KSM and brought it to Bin Laden.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (AlexGTAGamer @ Saturday, Sep 24 2011, 23:48)

Anyway I've got something that I'm sure all conspiracy theorists just drool over, and that is this "HAARP" thingamabob, what do you lot think about it? Personally I think it's a whole bunch of pith, if people are able to control the weather and other natural phenomenons how come they still can't get the weather forecasts right?

HAARP is a very interesting project, designed to enable atmospheric enhancements of radio and electromagnetic signals for the purposes of communication and surveillance. Basically, it's technology designed to experiment with ways of boosting radio transmission range, radar detection and other communication or early warning capabilities over long distances- with the overall intent being to develop a powerful passive early warning system capable of detecting, tracking and monitoring of things like troop movements, missile and aircraft launches and weapons tests. To this extent, it ties in well with the ECHELON project which is the FIVE-EYES signals intelligence centre that allows monitoring, intelligence gathering and detection capability shared between the five-eyes nations (UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand)- whose close relationship and geographical positioning means that they can provide sigint intelligence collection capability across much of the world.

Really engrossing, interesting stuff for anyone with an interest in military intelligence capability, but certainly not a project to build a weather machine. In fact, the majority of the research and development has been conducted by BAE systems here in the UK and at parter sites in the US, and all of the research is unclassified, though I believe some of the specifics have been redacted.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 00:20)

We shouldn't even have war, its primitive.  If everyone was educated properly in an equal society and a good environment, there would be no need for war.  Sadly we dont live in that world.  Its a ridiculous monetary system which has always been doomed to fail, thats why 2/3 of the world is in poverty.  Were all gonna run out of oil soon anyway, maybe not in our lifetime but the prices are gonna keep going up until no-one can afford it...

War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare.

Incidently, what do you suppose that a monetary system is replaced with? I mean, barter is all well and good but what if you don't need the services that another individual is offering in recompense for your action or trade? Then you need materials to trade with, items of a discernible value that can be used to pay for goods and services. Hey presto! You now have a monetary system, the very thing that you suggest is abolished. It's a noble idea "oh, without a monetary system we won't have greed or corporatism or injustice" but it just simply isn't true- partially because no large society has existed without a monetary system of some kind, and the entire principal is basically unworkable.

QUOTE (SweatyPa1ms @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 00:20)

Btw, I respect and support our brave troops and the 'help for heroes' charity but I just dont feel the war on terrorism is legal or moral.  The government are the real terrorists putting us in fear of a false enemy.  There isn't a threat, its all bollocks  .

A government can't be terrorists. One of the defining features of a terrorist organisation is that they don't have the legitimate mandate for the use of violence or lethal force. Governments do have that legitimate mandate, and therefore cannot be deemed terrorist organisations. Now, state-sponsored terrorism? That's a different kettle of fish, but I've yet to see any realistic accusations of it levelled against the West since the end of the Cold War.

Do you truly believe that radical, violent Salafist Islam isn't a definitive threat, or is less of a threat than our own governments? To me, that merely indicates that you don't particularly understand the intentions and threat posed by these organisations. Now, capability is something they do lack in certain areas- hence the lack of direct attacks on the Western world in the last ten years- but they pose a thread every bit as serious and viable as that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. More so, in fact, as due to their lack of hierarchical political and military structure and absence of statehood, they can effectively operate outside the boundaries of the Laws of War without facing the same repercussions that a nation state would.

[docrikowski]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 12:15)

War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare.

Sorry to barge in... A bit off topic but I wanted to reply just to the above part.

This is a very subjective point of view. I think that is really just your personal opinion and it is highly debatable. War, in my opinion of course, is possibly the main reason why the human race still didn't make a significant and definitive moral progress after all these centuries. In many aspects we are still in the same dark and dumb place we were thousands years ago... Actually when it comes to war we are quite worse now than we used to be centuries ago.

Maybe it's part of our nature, I can see that, but certainly not part of the natural order.
I wouldn't even confuse our nature with the animal kingdom one.
Animals do not fight each other to annihilation within the same species.
They do fight for power and mating privileges but only in very rare occasions the fight ends with the loser's death.

War is right now the primary obstacle to real progress for mankind. It has always been an obstacle more than a driving force. Technological innovations are absolutely not a way to measure progress in a civilization.
Just two make an example. Think about non war related progress we inherited from the ancient western world: philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory... I could go on for pages...
Some of this knowledge was indeed applied to warfare but war wasn't the primary driving force at all.
The primary driving force has always been human intelligence, curiosity and will to know, learn and discover.

[Staten]

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Monday, Sep 26 2011, 11:49)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 12:15) War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare. Sorry to barge in... A bit off topic but I wanted to reply just to the above part. This is a very subjective point of view. I think that is really just your personal opinion and it is highly debatable. War, in my opinion of course, is possibly the main reason why the human race still didn't make a significant and definitive moral progress after all these centuries. In many aspects we are still in the same dark and dumb place we were thousands years ago... Actually when it comes to war we are quite worse now than we used to be centuries ago. Maybe it's part of our nature, I can see that, but certainly not part of the natural order. I wouldn't even confuse our nature with the animal kingdom one. Animals do not fight each other to annihilation within the same species. They do fight for power and mating privileges but only in very rare occasions the fight ends with the loser's death. War is right now the primary obstacle to real progress for mankind. It has always been an obstacle more than a driving force. Technological innovations are absolutely not a way to measure progress in a civilization. Just two make an example. Think about non war related progress we inherited from the ancient western world: philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory... I could go on for pages... Some of this knowledge was indeed applied to warfare but war wasn't the primary driving force at all. The primary driving force has always been human intelligence, curiosity and will to know, learn and discover.

I think we've made huge leaps in morality over the past century; while not perfect, a lot of societies are more equal and less oppressive than they were a hundred years ago. There's still a way to go, I admit, but we're getting there.

This century, by the way, has seen more deaths through war than the rest of recorded history combined.

Animals do not fight to annihilation for the same reasons humans did not until very recently. They don't have the tools for the job. And while we have the tools now, we haven't really annihilated anything yet. Humans have brought untold misery and pain onto billions of their fellows, but not total annihilation.

Finally, a comment on the things the ancient world gave us; all that philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory you speak of found their best expression in Athens during a time when that city was in a constant state of war, trying to create an empire, but ending up weakening the whole of Greece to the extent that Persia and later Macedon (and later still Rome) could conquer it.

[Tchuck]

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Monday, Sep 26 2011, 08:49)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Sep 25 2011, 12:15) War is part of the natural order. It's derived from human nature and basic instincts that we share with the animal kingdom- a primal drive to obtain more power and by doing so to cement an individual's place at the head of the "pack". The only real difference is that humans are capable of using tools in warfare, of organising themselves into complex structures and of identifying causes to champion. War could even be deemed to serve a favourable evolutionary purpose- it cleanses area, moderates population and has been the primary driving force behind almost every innovation humankind has ever made. Everything from fire to flight to modern medicine is based almost entirely in what has been learned in warfare. Sorry to barge in... A bit off topic but I wanted to reply just to the above part. This is a very subjective point of view. I think that is really just your personal opinion and it is highly debatable. War, in my opinion of course, is possibly the main reason why the human race still didn't make a significant and definitive moral progress after all these centuries. In many aspects we are still in the same dark and dumb place we were thousands years ago... Actually when it comes to war we are quite worse now than we used to be centuries ago. Maybe it's part of our nature, I can see that, but certainly not part of the natural order. I wouldn't even confuse our nature with the animal kingdom one. Animals do not fight each other to annihilation within the same species. They do fight for power and mating privileges but only in very rare occasions the fight ends with the loser's death. War is right now the primary obstacle to real progress for mankind. It has always been an obstacle more than a driving force. Technological innovations are absolutely not a way to measure progress in a civilization. Just two make an example. Think about non war related progress we inherited from the ancient western world: philosophy, math, geometry, justice, logic, language, literature, art, architecture, oratory... I could go on for pages... Some of this knowledge was indeed applied to warfare but war wasn't the primary driving force at all. The primary driving force has always been human intelligence, curiosity and will to know, learn and discover.

Some animals do fight for annihilation though. Take a look at ants. They will enslave the opposing ant "tribe" to do forced work for them. Once they have done their job, or the ants are tired of the slaves, they just eat them. I'm no expert on ant mentality or logic, but they are annihilating their rivals all the same, wether for the same reasons we do it or not.

I do however agree with sivispacem. War can be deemed as favourable sometimes, and certainly has been pushing the boundaries on military technology, which eventually find their way in civil use such as aviation and the like. Is the price we pay for war fair enough for all that? It's debatable. War can also create jobs and move economies forward, which can be quite good.

[docrikowski]

@ Staten: it's very subjective and ultimately it depends on where you are born. As a planet we're not going in the right direction when it comes to moral progress.

We didn't annihilated the human race (yet) but some nations/societies annihilated their enemies.

Athens always managed to beat the Persian Empire so I'm not really sure what you meant with that. The Macedonians were certainly culturally close to the Greeks and so were the Romans who actually embraced the Greek culture into their own.
Sorry but I can't see a relation between cultural progress and political weakening.
Although I can see a relation between a constant state of war and political weakening.

@ Tchuck: I forgot about ants.
That's true. Ants, humans and chimps basically.

As you said it's debatable if we somehow and sometimes do benefit from war.
Personally I believe that the cost of a war make the benefit of post war look like a poor achievement.
Even though we can't cancel the past of human history I think that we reached a point (in human history) in which is blatantly obvious that war is a mistake, an immorality, a savage and psychopathic way to solve things.
Overall a sign of poor intelligence as a species.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Thursday, Sep 29 2011, 18:19)

As you said it's debatable if we somehow and sometimes do benefit from war. Personally I believe that the cost of a war make the benefit of post war look like a poor achievement. Even though we can't cancel the past of human history I think that we reached a point (in human history) in which is blatantly obvious that war is a mistake, an immorality, a savage and psychopathic way to solve things. Overall a sign of poor intelligence as a species.

That's entirely subjective, though, and comes down to how you measure achievement. I'm not saying that killing others en-masse is in any way a positive thing, but it's not the antithesis to achievement either. Achievement suggests some kind of advancement, and it's hard to deny that warfare has provided the vast majority of major advancements in human history. Does that make war a good thing? No. Does that mean that we should abandon peaceful means and development? Again, no. But warfare is not an entirely negative entity. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the advances in trauma and injury treatment, trials of now-vital drugs and the development of various radioisotopes from national nuclear programs during the Second World War have probably saved more lives than the war itself took. Even just in the case of the latter and solely in the United States, approximately 700,000 individuals undergo radiotherapy for cancers that would otherwise be fatal per year, with the average survival rate being in the high 60% region. That's 4 million people a decade in the United States alone being saved by a discovery directly descended from a single military program.

[docrikowski]

Radiotherapy studies started around half a century before WWII.
Saying that it descended directly from a single military program sounds a bit like disinformation.

QUOTE

...it's hard to deny that warfare has provided the vast majority of major advancements in human history.

Sivi, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I just can't see it like this. There have been other major factors involved imo.

Anyway maybe I derailed this topic a bit.
Do we have a war topic?
It could be an interesting one.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 10:36)

Radiotherapy studies started around half a century before WWII. Saying that it descended directly from a single military program sounds a bit like disinformation.

Not quite true. Whilst x-ray radiation therapy has been used for some time, modern radiotherapy techniques are much later in their development. Quackery and dangerous experimentation with radioactive isotopes doesn't quite equate to useful isotope-based radiation therapy. I grant you, it's something of a stretch to say that modern radiotherapy wouldn't exist without the US nuclear program, but I don't feel it's that much of a stretch to present the idea that without the atomic bomb project, the discovery of these usable isotopes and by association their techniques for use would have come years, probably decades later.

You're welcome to start a warfare topic if you wish.

[docrikowski]

What I mean is that Marie Curie discovered Radium in 1898.
Many consider 1934 discoveries by Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Irène Joliot-Curie as a milestone in nuclear medicine.
And the Manhattan Project certainly contributed to modern medicine.
What I'm saying is that any human technological progress is the result of a "journey". Many stages of this "journey" are not related to some military program or state of war. We can't say that a technological progress that has been accelerated cause of a state of war couldn't have been achieved in peace in a decent amount of time. We just don't know that. It's all about will. Will to succeed in a research. That kind of will can be applied indifferently in war and in peace.

---

I might start a topic about history of war.
Surprisingly enough I'm an eager reader of anything related to battles and wars.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 04:14)

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Thursday, Sep 29 2011, 18:19) As you said it's debatable if we somehow and sometimes do benefit from war. Personally I believe that the cost of a war make the benefit of post war look like a poor achievement. Even though we can't cancel the past of human history I think that we reached a point (in human history) in which is blatantly obvious that war is a mistake, an immorality, a savage and psychopathic way to solve things. Overall a sign of poor intelligence as a species. That's entirely subjective, though, and comes down to how you measure achievement. I'm not saying that killing others en-masse is in any way a positive thing, but it's not the antithesis to achievement either. Achievement suggests some kind of advancement, and it's hard to deny that warfare has provided the vast majority of major advancements in human history. Does that make war a good thing? No. Does that mean that we should abandon peaceful means and development? Again, no. But warfare is not an entirely negative entity. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the advances in trauma and injury treatment, trials of now-vital drugs and the development of various radioisotopes from national nuclear programs during the Second World War have probably saved more lives than the war itself took. Even just in the case of the latter and solely in the United States, approximately 700,000 individuals undergo radiotherapy for cancers that would otherwise be fatal per year, with the average survival rate being in the high 60% region. That's 4 million people a decade in the United States alone being saved by a discovery directly descended from a single military program.

Doesn't it stand to reason that those scientists could create even more if they weren't designing stealth bombers or whatever?

And do people actually believe there's a secret society running the world? Like, are people actually so insecure that they think other people out there have the capabilities to secretly rule the world like a cartoon supervillain? Or is it the " international bankers" -- kind of a broad term that really only describes their occupation, while they probably all come from different social classes and have their own allegences to their respective companies, countries and families. In other words, if t he Rothchilds or whatever are so hell bent on being at the very top of the pyramid why would they share the spot with other families? Banks aren't the problem and neither is money, money just represents goods and banks let you store your money, it's this " kill or be killed" Gordon Geko mindset that leads people to accumulate money after they have enough by any standard. The evils in the world of politics and money don't stem from the work of a few people, they stem from our own collective refusal to keep it real.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Oct 4 2011, 02:23)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 04:14) QUOTE (docrikowski @ Thursday, Sep 29 2011, 18:19) As you said it's debatable if we somehow and sometimes do benefit from war. Personally I believe that the cost of a war make the benefit of post war look like a poor achievement. Even though we can't cancel the past of human history I think that we reached a point (in human history) in which is blatantly obvious that war is a mistake, an immorality, a savage and psychopathic way to solve things. Overall a sign of poor intelligence as a species. That's entirely subjective, though, and comes down to how you measure achievement. I'm not saying that killing others en-masse is in any way a positive thing, but it's not the antithesis to achievement either. Achievement suggests some kind of advancement, and it's hard to deny that warfare has provided the vast majority of major advancements in human history. Does that make war a good thing? No. Does that mean that we should abandon peaceful means and development? Again, no. But warfare is not an entirely negative entity. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the advances in trauma and injury treatment, trials of now-vital drugs and the development of various radioisotopes from national nuclear programs during the Second World War have probably saved more lives than the war itself took. Even just in the case of the latter and solely in the United States, approximately 700,000 individuals undergo radiotherapy for cancers that would otherwise be fatal per year, with the average survival rate being in the high 60% region. That's 4 million people a decade in the United States alone being saved by a discovery directly descended from a single military program. Doesn't it stand to reason that those scientists could create even more if they weren't designing stealth bombers or whatever?

A fair point, but we tend to stagnate in terms of inventiveness when the technology is not related to warfare. Got no idea why, but we just do. Something to do with immediate demand or requirement for technology rather than vague interest, perhaps?

[sivispacem]

Topic Split from here

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Sunday, Dec 25 2011, 08:26)

How the hell does a man who has started x amount of wars since his entrance into office win the nobel Peace prize??

How the hell does a country with a degree of mandatory political education as high as the United States spawn a populace who are, for the most part, so utterly inept at actually understanding and rationalising the decisions of politicians? Obama didn't start a single war. He was involved in one military intervention (Libya), which wasn't a war (the lack of ground troops precludes it from being a proper war), he's continued Afghanistan and brought Iraq to a close. Or are there five dozen secret wars he's started that only you and your insane conspiracy theory buddies know exist?

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 16:32

[GrandMaster Smith]

Well I guess if you don't 'technically' consider bombing a country with hundreds of cruise missiles, f16's shooting down anything in site and hundreds if not thousands of deaths as a war with Libya, then sure.

The man is wasting millions on a war that we do not need to be fighting. 9/11 killed what, 3,000 people? How many of our troops have died, have many troops and innocent people have we killed? What's the point? We're just making sh*t worse..

"Oh, you just don't understand. We can't instantly pull out/ Preventable death and driving our country along with it's economy to the ground is needed for economic development and the advancement of the human civilization as a whole."

Obama is president of the UNITED STATES, not the entire f*ckin globe. How many US bases do we even have worldwide?

But of course, the UN isn't trying to implement a one worldwide government at all, eh? They're just spreading worldwide peace, one kill at a time..