Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
HamdenRice wrote:Ever since I first started looking into the holes in the official story and writing about it, back in the old days on the DU 9/11 Forum, I was always as interested in how we know what we know as in what we know. I may be interested in what others might call "conspiracy theories" but I'm also interested in trying to figure out the method to determine what is real --
Canadian_watcher wrote:
not to get too metaphysical here, but "real/true" = "What one wants to believe"
I have no doubt that there is truth and that there are facts. But how we know what we know largely depends on what we want to believe. In spite of the existence of facts, there is no truth outside of one's desire to believe.
In your post, you express this clearly. You are angry that most people want to believe version "X" of the story while you want to believe version "Y." How can we know which is correct? In this age of information & special effects, spycraft and propaganda, deep politics and memory holes I argue that unless you were there, you'll never know.
The secret to 'truth,' I think, is to convince enough people to see it your way.
HamdenRice wrote:I think you've completely misread the post. The term "truth" is used because there is a community that calls itself the "truth" community. I'm not making claims about metaphysical absolute truth.
That said, what facts are probably correct, is not a matter of belief or convincing other people. We can both stand on top of a ten story building and argue about whether, if we jump off, we will go splat, or bounce up like in the Matrix movie, and whatever conclusion we come to, we are indeed going to go splat.
Obama was either born in Hawaii or in Kenya, and OBL either was killed the other day, or they are putting on a really elaborate tv show over there in Pakistan.
Also, I'm not angry about anything. Bemused is a better description.
Canadian_watcher wrote:You are angry that most people want to believe version "X" of the story while you want to believe version "Y."
How can we know which is correct? In this age of information & special effects, spycraft and propaganda, deep politics and memory holes I argue that unless you were there, you'll never know.
The secret to 'truth,' I think, is to convince enough people to see it your way.
Canadian_watcher wrote:I don't think I misread it. Weren't you saying that people are missing the truth of the OBL situation and that the truth would in some way set them free by exposing the Big Lie behind 9/11?
HamdenRice wrote:Canadian_watcher wrote:I don't think I misread it. Weren't you saying that people are missing the truth of the OBL situation and that the truth would in some way set them free by exposing the Big Lie behind 9/11?
Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying at all.
HamdenRice wrote:I look at the official stuff and the mainstream media, taken with a grain of salt, and correlated, cross checked -- a pale imitation of what Paul Thompson does; then look at unofficial, independent, dissenting information; add the information that the government didn't want us to see, such as leaked information published; and try to draw a conclusion.
HamdenRice wrote:The newspapers in Europe, India and Pakistan are going apeshit about this 'cause to paraphrase Ricky Ricardo, Pakistan got some 'spainin to do.
Meanwhile, here in the good ole US of A, the nation and mainstream media and truth community and blogosphere suffer a collective hysteria of cognitive dissonance. Since this can't be true, it isn't true, but for different reasons.
For the mainstream media, it's because the 9/11 official story can't be wrong. So Pakistan's military and intelligence services were massively incompetent! (Where have I heard that before?)
CIA Director Leon Panetta told House members Tuesday that any way you look at it, Pakistan's role in Osama bin Laden's whereabouts was troubling.
According to two sources in a closed door briefing, Panetta told lawmakers "either they were involved or incompetent. Neither place is a good place to be."
I hate to sound like the assholes of the DU 9/11 Forum, but jeez, just how big do these conspiracies have to be?
Let's see, Gates is forced out when Obama blindsides him with demands for $400 billion extra pentagon cuts after he's already delivered what he thinks are the max he can offer; Panetta the budget ax man moves from CIA to the Pentagon, but before he goes, he gets to play the starring role in the killing of Emanual Goldstein so nobody will fuck with him at DOD; McChyrstal gets a bone thrown to him that the whole hunter killer thing works; etc., etc., etc.
The Democrats have been salivating over the "peace dividend" ever since Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank outside the Kremlin, and if you can't see the deep political struggle that's been going on for the last two decades, it's not because the evidence isn't there, it's because you just don't want to see it.
The MSM is congratulating President Obama for having the "balls" to launch this attack because it could have failed, but the most audacious part of it was doing so in a way that destroys a pillar of the most sacred narrative of the post 9/11 decade.
kenoma wrote:Let's see, Gates is forced out when Obama blindsides him with demands for $400 billion extra pentagon cuts after he's already delivered what he thinks are the max he can offer; Panetta the budget ax man moves from CIA to the Pentagon, but before he goes, he gets to play the starring role in the killing of Emanual Goldstein so nobody will fuck with him at DOD; McChyrstal gets a bone thrown to him that the whole hunter killer thing works; etc., etc., etc.
That's a HBO-quality end-of-season clifffhanger you've got worked out there. I wouldn't watch it, but I bet a lot of people would.
I didn't notice this particular story getting much play here, but it seems significant (if true).
Story is here
The story begins:The Obama administration is seeking to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to accelerate a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and hasten the end of the Afghanistan war, according to U.S. officials involved in war policy.
HamdenRice wrote:...
So here's what we learned in the last few days (if you accept my epistemology): OBL has been living in a gigantic multi-million dollar compound for the last five years in a city that is under the complete control of Pakistan's military within walking distance from its version of West Point.
...
Osama bin Laden hideout 'worth far less than US claimed'
Pakistan property experts say US government description of '$1m mansion' was way off the mark, as further exaggerations come to light
* Declan Walsh in Abbottabad
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 May 2011 14.35 BST
* Article history
Osama bin Laden's house, described by the US government as a $1m (£605,000) mansion, is in fact worth no more than $250,000 say property professionals in Abbottabad, the town where he was killed.
The revelation is the latest of several erroneous descriptions about the nature of Bin Laden's hideout – and the manner of his death – which have dogged the White House in recent days.
On Tuesday US officials retracted claims that Bin Laden was armed when killed, and that he had used one of his wives as a human shield.
Descriptions of Bin Laden's hideout have also been prone to exaggeration. After Sunday night's dramatic raid by US Navy Seals, a senior Obama administration official told reporters that the property, an "extraordinarily unique compound" in an "affluent suburb", was valued at around $1m.
But two property professionals in Abbottabad – a quiet, military-dominated town – said that much of that was incorrect. Based on the size of the plot and the house, which was built in 2005, and using recent property sales as a guide, they estimated that it would fetch no more than $250,000 on the current market.
"Twenty million rupees, maximum," said property dealer Muhammad Anwar, a 22-year veteran of the local market, at his Abbottabad office. "No swimming pool. This is not a posh area. We call it a middling area."
Asked about the American estimate, he chuckled. "Maybe that's the assessment from a satellite. But here on the ground, that's the price."
The assessment was backed by the local branch manager of a major Pakistani bank, who himself owns land in the same locality. "If it was worth that much, we would all be multi-millionaires round here," he said.
A doctor who sold the land where the compound was built identified the buyer as Mohammad Arshad, a name that partially matches that of one of the two brothers who lived in the house – one of whom is believed to have been the courier who unwittingly led the CIA to Bin Laden.
Property records obtained by the Associated Press show Arshad bought adjoining plots in four stages between 2004 and 2005. Dr Qazi Mahfooz Ul Haq said on Wednesday that he sold a plot of land to Mr Arshad in 2005. He said the buyer was a "modest, humble type of man" who claimed to be purchasing it for his uncle.
The neighbourhood where Bin Laden lived, Bilal Town, was developed following the 2005 earthquake that devastated northern Pakistan, killing more than 73,000 people.
People from quake-hit towns such as Mansehra and Balakot streamed into Abbottabad, seeking to build new homes in a more secure area.
Many residents come from middle-income backgrounds, having built their homes with family inheritances, said Mr Anwar's 24-year-old son, Junaid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... CMP=twt_fd
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests