rigorousintuition.ca

IanEye's huge steaming pile of timewasting, self-regarding, content-free, thread-derailing troll-shit would have been removed immediately.

Mac, I am disappointed that you would say that. You have a lot of good insight, and you contribute a lot to this forum, but really? Ianeye is a very perceptive long time poster. Maybe you are having a bad day, and maybe an apology is due?

MacC and IanEye have been warring for like 10 years. (Crazy thought.) I'm not sure how it started.

MacCruiskeen » 16 Nov 2015 15:03 wrote: The point I'm making is that real suicide-bombers would presumably have no objection to a) blowing themselves to bits, and b) also killing as many innocent bystanders as possible -- that is their raison d' [pas plus]etre, after all. Whereas, say, Gladio employees would want to enjoy their salary, their bonus, and their well-earned post-match beer champagne (not to mention their pension).

If your thesis doesn't pan out, don't forget to test your assumption about Gladio "employees". I know how suicide assassins are made in the labs. It's not difficult, especially after 60 years of perfecting the method combined with ever more efficient tech. That, along with recent, unfortunate experiences with the network, is why I went straight to Western intel op on this one. Everyone is viewing this from different lenses of knowledge and experience, of course.

norton ash wrote:IanEye is not a troll. He's one of the deepest and most intuitive posters I've met here.

Yep.

To nobody's surprise, I'm sure, the mainstream media is STILL publishing stories saying this is all Assad's fault, that if he was gone ISIS would just go away.

I get the feeling that they are losing their ability to project coherent narratives. Maybe I am wrong.

How do we post gifs? It's not clear to me in the code

If I could embed it the following gif would accompany this quote:

“In existing criminology there are concepts: a criminal man, a criminal profession, a criminal society, a criminal sect, and a criminal tribe; but there is no concept of a criminal state, or a criminal government, or criminal legislation. Consequently, the biggest crimes actually escape being called crimes.”

― P.D. Ouspensky, A New Model of the Universe

hmmmm, willow. These techniques are presumably knowable to others, too. Technology has a way of spreading. And doubtless they were in use long before they were scientized. I've never found suicide attackers to be that puzzling (in the sense that the form has obviously existed throughout history, not that you can't puzzle over what makes people able and willing to do it in the absence of bottomless desperation or desire for direct revenge, not applicable in this case). Almost all violence comes with an implicit willingness or indifference to the risk of receiving it in the process of committing it.

Even with 9/11 suspicion is roused not so much by the idea of men willing to commit propaganda of the deed but by the coordination, complexity and degree of penetration required, and the ample evidence of foreknowledge and pre-planning in the responses and the coverups.

MacCruiskeen wrote:These three bizarrely ineffective (almost wholly undamaging!) "Stade de France explosions" were the highly dramatic invisible opening salvo and thus performed many functions. Millions of French and German people heard them live on TV. Tens of thousands of Parisians (and Germans) were trapped in the stadium for hours. Hollande himself was a highly-visible "potential target" there. Makes the whole thing undeniable, right? And hundreds if not thousands of honest cops will have been rushing there, or already tied up there, in the north of the city, while the real massacres went ahead remarkably effectively, just a little later, elsewhere in Paris.

Right. It does seem that that was the plan. And you're right that Prudhomme, the paramedic, didn't see it happen. Bley Mokono, the guy in the France 3 video, doesn't talk about seeing the attack. He was in the toilet (the game had started, he and his friend and son were late), when the bombs went off. Those first two are the ones that went off 100m apart right outside the stadium. In a different interview He talks about seeing wounded people (and he was wounded himself). In that video he claims he saw a 'bearded individual' behaving suspiciously, sweaty, anxious... In yet another one he says it must have been the guy he saw, based on the last time he took a look at him and when and where the bomb blew up. But he's the only real witness, as far as I can tell, and some of the comments on the Le Parisien article are unconvinced.

Odd that France had to wait until after the attack on Paris to launch those air strikes on "ISIS HQ" & training camps. What a crock of shit.

The Consul » 16 Nov 2015 23:55 wrote:Odd that France had to wait until after the attack on Paris to launch those air strikes on "ISIS HQ" & training camps. What a crock of shit.

oh and just today the us blew up a convoy of tanker trucks isis used for exporting oil.

anyway, looks like it's game over for isis, the honeypot is sprung

JackRiddler » 16 Nov 2015 21:24 wrote:hmmmm, willow. These techniques are presumably knowable to others, too. Technology has a way of spreading. And doubtless they were in use long before they were scientized. I've never found suicide attackers to be that puzzling (in the sense that the form has obviously existed throughout history, not that you can't puzzle over what makes people able and willing to do it in the absence of bottomless desperation or desire for direct revenge, not applicable in this case). Almost all violence comes with an implicit willingness or indifference to the risk of receiving it in the process of committing it.

I take no issue with any of your statements except the final sentence. It is entirely possible to manipulate non-violent people into committing violence, we know this as some of the procedures are outlined in CIA FOIA documents, and I know it through personal experience. I can take a pacifist and put he or she through a system of aversive conditioning and amnesia inducing techniques and make a suicidal assassin out of them, regardless of their normatively held beliefs. I get that the very thought of this is frightening on level that most people cannot metabolize, regardless, it is an inescapable fact of contemporary human life.

Project Willow » Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:21 am wrote:

JackRiddler » 16 Nov 2015 21:24 wrote:hmmmm, willow. These techniques are presumably knowable to others, too. Technology has a way of spreading. And doubtless they were in use long before they were scientized. I've never found suicide attackers to be that puzzling (in the sense that the form has obviously existed throughout history, not that you can't puzzle over what makes people able and willing to do it in the absence of bottomless desperation or desire for direct revenge, not applicable in this case). Almost all violence comes with an implicit willingness or indifference to the risk of receiving it in the process of committing it.

I take no issue with any of your statements except the final sentence. It is entirely possible to manipulate non-violent people into committing violence, we know this as some of the procedures are outlined in CIA FOIA documents, and I know it through personal experience. I can take a pacifist and put he or she through a system of aversive conditioning and amnesia inducing techniques and make a suicidal assassin out of them, regardless of their normatively held beliefs. I get that the very thought of this is frightening on level that most people cannot metabolize, regardless, it is an inescapable fact of contemporary human life.

Hypnotism works. I got hypnotized once and I couldn't get over it for a week. I felt like my mind was being controlled. Luckily, my mind fought the thoughts and sensations that were not of me. Hypnotism is big biz these days. Shit you can quit smoking, lose weight, accept atrocities, be left, be right. It works! It really does and I will never do it again. But all of this I think is possible through hypnotism.

Isn't it about time we collectively started to frontrun these type of events at RI?

There are enough rigorous logisticians here to piece together the next likely candidate, the next obvious play.

France was obvious (yes - in retrospect). It's common knowledge that many of the French citizenry dislike US hegemonic ambitions - and contrary to the myth that they are 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys', were most likely, of all EU citizenry, to reject it, internally - by force, if necessary. They needed to be brought 'back in line', pronto.

Who's next? The obvious play is Germany (even though still technically occupied), or a little further East, Hungary.

This may be a pivotal moment in further understanding whether the system is losing control, or not.

The obvious choice would indicate loss, the unusual opens up a new level of intrigue.

I keep thinking Germany, too, and I'm not sure why.

It seems the biggest threat to the US right now is losing Europe and thus the peer of NATO. Germany was already siding with Russia. And unlike the Psychopaths in the US, Europe isn't interested in getting into WW3 with anybody.

Of course these kinds of strikes might just make European countries side even more with Russia. Which would be most excellent.

Israel is happy right now because anything that makes the world feel that Muslim Arsbs are a nasty violent threat is good for them. So much for that boycott movement, right?

But people are starting to see through the Psyops.

I am hoping that this attack is just a death-throe of the deflating monster that is the US.

coffin_dodger » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:38 am wrote:Isn't it about time we collectively started to frontrun these type of events at RI?

.

coffin_dodger » Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:38 am wrote:Isn't it about time we collectively started to frontrun these type of events at RI?

There are enough rigorous logisticians here to piece together the next likely candidate, the next obvious play.

Yes, let's collectively wager on the time/location of the next media-saturated event resulting in the deaths of hundreds of fellow humans, so that we can slap ourselves on the back for being canny cybersleuths. Or is there some other benefit to such an exercise that I'm missing?

Would events not saturated by the media count? There are weekly "events" invariably causing the deaths of dozens, and at times, hundreds of brown/poor people in other regions, but it gets nowhere near the amount of airplay as these CHOSEN events.

Just looking to obtain clarity on the rules of engagement.