It is a war against Islam! (and i have nothing to do today)

[GeneralTacticus]

Being... what? Evidence for my statement that the US government carried it out? The evidence I cited is on the site. As for my statement about the OBL tape being fake, I withdrew that, remember? I can't find the place I read the information I was using.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sik,

Where was that great post you once did extolling the nigh impossibility of massive government cover ups? Seems that this plays right into the claims of Dino 'gainst the RCN.

[GeneralTacticus]

Sik,

Where was that great post you once did extolling the nigh impossibility of massive government cover ups? Seems that this plays right into the claims of Dino 'gainst the RCN.

That would seem to be a case of chicken and egg, wouldn't it? You argue that since coverups are impossible, nothing that must have been covered up has occurred. I argue that since stuff that must have been covered up has occurred, coverups are possible. Where is the truth (and I would like to know that myself).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Seems that this plays right into the claims of Dino 'gainst the RCN.

Huh?

[GeneralTacticus]

He's saying that if massive cover-ups are impossible, then there couldn't have been any government involvement in Sept. 11.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
For that matter, how many people were killed in Eastern europe by the communists?

Are you freakin serious? The Soviet system consumed many more millions than any other well known genocidal maniacs this past century.

[notyoueither]

Well, except maybe for Mao. Can't discount the possibility that Chinese Communism was more lethal than Russian Communism.

[GeneralTacticus]

Stalin killed a lot of people, but I wasn't referring to him. I'll ask again: how many people were killed in Eastern Europe by the communists? I doubt it would even approach the 200 000 killed by US-backed death squads in Central America alone.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, except maybe for Mao. Can't discount the possibility that Chinese Communism was more lethal than Russian Communism.

No argument there.

[notyoueither]

Lets start with about 10 million Ukrainians during collectivisation. They are European, right? btw, wtf does it matter if they were European or not? We can go on from there if you wish.

Come on. If you want to count Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan, we cannot discount Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, can we?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Stalin killed a lot of people, but I wasn't referring to him. I'll ask again: how many people were killed in Eastern Europe by the communists?

7-10 million in the Ukraine alone.

[GeneralTacticus]

Lets start with about 10 million Ukrainians during collectivisation. They are European, right? btw, wtf does it matter if they were European or not? We can go on from there if you wish.

Come on. If you want to count Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan, we cannot discount Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, can we?

The main point I was trying to make was the behaviour of each superpower within their spheres of influence - in which, post-Stalin, the allies of the US tended to be a lot more brutal than the communists.

[GeneralTacticus]

7-10 million in the Ukraine alone.

Not part of the Cold War, which was what I was referring to.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
post-Stalin

Why make artificial distinctions?

[notyoueither]

You cannot divorce Stalin so easily from your Soviets. He was made possible by the system, just as every example you site will be a product of the western system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Not part of the Cold War, which was what I was referring to.

You said, "how many people were killed in Eastern Europe by the communists?" I gave you a partial answer. Don't try to change horses in midstream because the answer conflicted with your preconcived notions.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

That would seem to be a case of chicken and egg, wouldn't it? You argue that since coverups are impossible, nothing that must have been covered up has occurred. I argue that since stuff that must have been covered up has occurred, coverups are possible. Where is the truth (and I would like to know that myself).

I have to leave soon, so I can't get into your replies in detail tonight. You can look at conspiracies from a mathematical standpoint, the salient features being the number of people involved with more people making the chance of a leak exponentially greater. Other factors include the nature of the information being kept secret (more interesting or controversial information is likely to be revealed more quickly), the nature of the group holding the secret (disciplined true believers with a strong group identity are more likely to keep a secret longer than people who have little or no attachment to the group). Even when a secret has been revealed to someone outside the original group, it does not mean that the secret is immediately exposed to the world. Coercive measures can sometimes keep the lid on for a while, as can a lack of means of communications. This is all set against time, ie there is a chance every day that the cover will be blown, and the more time that goes by the larger cumulative chance is that the cat is out of the bag.

The bottom line is that the chances that a large conspiracy involving interesting information in a modern society with numerous forms of readily available communication equipment surviving until all those who know what happened die is effectively zero. People who work in Intelligence are very familiar with these sorts of estimations, and very unlikely to engage in activity that is almost certainly going to get them caught (and in this instance, fairly quickly due to the presence of so many factors which tend to lead to exposure), especially when getting caught not only means the death penalty, but also being branded as the worst traitors their state has ever known. I don't find your theory that 9/11 was a U.S. Government conspiracy credible in the least.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why make artificial distinctions?

Mainly because this is the same time period that US atrocities really started up. Also because I was mainly talking about what went on inside the two spheres of influence, not what went on insider the nations themselves (it should be obvious to just about anyone that the Soviets were worse than the Americans in domestic policy, for all the flaws the US had).

You cannot divorce Stalin so easily from your Soviets. He was made possible by the system, just as every example you site will be a product of the western system.

Not quite. Soviet leaders afterwards were hardly similar to Stalin; they were dictators, obviously, but they were hardly genocidal maniacs. Stalin's atrocities were a product of him personally; the West's atrocities have continued regardless of who has been in power.

I have to leave soon, so I can't get into your replies in detail tonight. You can look at conspiracies from a mathematical standpoint, the salient features being the number of people involved with more people making the chance of a leak exponentially greater. Other factors include the nature of the information being kept secret (more interesting or controversial information is likely to be revealed more quickly), the nature of the group holding the secret (disciplined true believers with a strong group identity are more likely to keep a secret longer than people who have little or no attachment to the group). Even when a secret has been revealed to someone outside the original group, it does not mean that the secret is immediately exposed to the world. Coercive measures can sometimes keep the lid on for a while, as can a lack of means of communications. This is all set against time, ie there is a chance every day that the cover will be blown, and the more time that goes by the larger cumulative chance is that the cat is out of the bag.

The bottom line is that the chances that a large conspiracy involving interesting information in a modern society with numerous forms of readily available communication equipment surviving until all those who know what happened die is effectively zero. People who work in Intelligence are very familiar with these sorts of estimations, and very unlikely to engage in activity that is almost certainly going to get them caught (and in this instance, fairly quickly due to the presence of so many factors which tend to lead to exposure), especially when getting caught not only means the death penalty, but also being branded as the worst traitors their state has ever known. I don't find your theory that 9/11 was a U.S. Government conspiracy credible in the least.

How many people would have really needed to be in on such a scheme for it to work? I'd imagine it would depend on whether or not it was entirely carried out by the US government, or if it was simply an Al Quaeda operation that the US government saw coming and did nothing about. In that case, i can't imagine it would take all that many people.

[Shi Huangdi]

As far as who did the 9/11 attacks, any reasonable person would not assume it was the USA. Even if GWB was evil enough to attack his own people, something doubtful in itself, all it would take would be one person in the entire chain of command who objected to such a thing to reveal the act. After that, it'd be impeachment followed by execution. No sane President could expect everyone to loyally follow out such a mission. Moreover, you also have to take into account the fact that whoever commanded the assault would lose his life in the process. Who would do that just for oil or votes for GWB when they wouldn't be around to enjoy it?

OBL makes a lot more sense. He had already declared war against the USA, had ordered several terrorist attacks such as this before, had plotted to destroy the WTC before. It is also more likely that a terrorist moslem would do such a thing, as they have been involved in suicide attacks before and you get alot more incentive to do such a thing if you believe Allah would reward you in heaven.

As for US actions during the cold war, I don't deny that US allies have done some nasty things, including thing that probably weren't justified. But as a result of our agressive anti-communist stance during the cold war, we helped diminish Soviet power and eventually got rid of a brutal and totaltarian form of government, Communism.

[notyoueither]

Not quite. Soviet leaders afterwards were hardly similar to Stalin; they were dictators, obviously, but they were hardly genocidal maniacs. Stalin's atrocities were a product of him personally; the West's atrocities have continued regardless of who has been in power.

Well. One source I looked at had 6 million more citizens biting the dust between '54 and '91. Now, Stalin died in '53. So, I guess his followers were not that much better. Go figure.

[GeneralTacticus]

As far as who did the 9/11 attacks, any reasonable person would not assume it was the USA. Even if GWB was evil enough to attack his own people, something doubtful in itself, all it would take would be one person in the entire chain of command who objected to such a thing to reveal the act. After that, it'd be impeachment followed by execution. No sane President could expect everyone to loyally follow out such a mission. Moreover, you also have to take into account the fact that whoever commanded the assault would lose his life in the process. Who would do that just for oil or votes for GWB when they wouldn't be around to enjoy it?

Eh? Who said that whoever was in command would have to die? For one thing, the technology does exist to fly a plane by remote control.

OBL makes a lot more sense. He had already declared war against the USA, had ordered several terrorist attacks such as this before, had plotted to destroy the WTC before. It is also more likely that a terrorist moslem would do such a thing, as they have been involved in suicide attacks before and you get alot more incentive to do such a thing if you believe Allah would reward you in heaven.

Yes, it makes sense that he would do this. Doesn't mean that the US government had no part in it.

As for US actions during the cold war, I don't deny that US allies have done some nasty things, including thing that probably weren't justified.

The US did a hell of a lot of nasty things during the Cold War. The Central American examples I keep citing are hardly unique; the US supported tyrants and murderers all over the world, mainly in order to crush any kind of dissent whatsoever, not merely communists.

But as a result of our agressive anti-communist stance during the cold war, we helped diminish Soviet power and eventually got rid of a brutal and totaltarian form of government, Communism.

Most of the actions taken by the US government during the Cold War weren't directed against communists at all, but against anyone who disliked the US for whatever reason, or just didn't totally support it.

Well. One source I looked at had 6 million more citizens biting the dust between '54 and '91. Now, Stalin died in '53. So, I guess his followers were not that much better. Go figure.

What was this source?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What was this source?

There's this one:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable.htm

and this one:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF

Did you think the people who crushed the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were just a bunch of happy, go-lucky individuals? When Stalin died all the bad stuff went away? Puleaaase.

[Jaguar]

Australia, according to a recent article I read somewhere, is entirely responsible for the nuclear war that occurred two years ago.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
(it should be obvious to just about anyone that the Soviets were worse than the Americans in domestic policy, for all the flaws the US had).

If I had wanted to talk about the Soviet domestic policy, I wouldn't have bothered to mention the Ukraine (which isn't a part of Russia.) when there are so many other more appropiate examples.

[GeneralTacticus]

There's this one:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable.htm

and this one:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF

Did you think the people who crushed the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were just a bunch of happy, go-lucky individuals? When Stalin died all the bad stuff went away? Puleaaase.

Hmmm. Didn't know about that. Thank you for the info, as well as for reminding me about the invasions in Eastern Europe. I'd forgotten about them.

About the second link, though - could you clarify what exactly it mean? Taken at face value, it seems to be saying that only 60 000 people were killed throughout all of Soviet history...

Australia, according to a recent article I read somewhere, is entirely responsible for the nuclear war that occurred two years ago.

What's that meant to be parodying?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What's that meant to be parodying?

Nothing. I'm wasting your time. Don't pay attenion to me. I just felt like saying something random and expressing my concern for all those involved.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Hmmm. Didn't know about that. Thank you for the info, as well as for reminding me about the invasions in Eastern Europe. I'd forgotten about them.

About the second link, though - could you clarify what exactly it mean? Taken at face value, it seems to be saying that only 60 000 people were killed throughout all of Soviet history..

You must note the ,000 notation. That would be 6,872 x 1000, or roughly 7 million people (after Stalin).

[notyoueither]

61,911,000 total.

/Edit. But that seems to include civilian victims of the Nazis.

[GeneralTacticus]

If I had wanted to talk about the Soviet domestic policy, I wouldn't have bothered to mention the Ukraine (which isn't a part of Russia.) when there are so many other more appropiate examples.

It is part of the USSR, so it's still domestic policy. And I'm not arguing that the Soviets were nice, either, but I can't think of any examples in which Soviet-backed forces decapitated someone's family and left the bodies sitting at the table witht heir hands resting on top of their heads, or of them dragging children across barbed wire until the flesh fell off their bones, or of them purposefully targetting farms and health clinics in US-backed nations, or of funding an internal terrorist army in another country and blockading it's harbours, then anouncing that unless it's side won the next elections, they'd continue doing this until the country collapsed. All this the US and it's puppets did.

You must note the ,000 notation. That would be 6,872 x 1000, or roughly 7 million people.

Ah. Didn't notice that.

EDIT: And can we agree to stop this discussion? It's not as if we're getting anywhere, and I have ebtter things to do with my time. You probably do as well...

[Jaguar]

OK now for a serious post. Can you post a credible link with evidence that Al Quaeda was not responsible for the attacks?

Edit in response to yours: OK never mind this post.