Sunday, February 18, 2007

Misunderestimating The Power of Prediction

I've said this a long while back: Just because the President says something doesn't make it true. Indeed, it appears that the W, Rove and Co continues to speculate the future when it leverages their political agenda. Have a look at this wild prediction:
This week's voting gave the world a glimpse of democracy's vigor. The next votes should provide unmistakable assurance of this nation's resolve in achieving success, supporting the cause of democracy, and stopping terrorist forces in their ultimate aim of bringing their violence to our shores.
Again we see that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence of terrorism. Why, indeed, then is it that the terror threat level goes up when we happen to catch wind of yet another plot or catch a particularly bad guy? I do not believe the president or his pals when he suggests more of the same is going to produce a better result than already obtained. How about you?


Enlightenment said...

Why does the "terror threat level" go up in those instances? Well, first we have to consider just what is the main result from the Cheney regime raising the level? Many people get more nervous; nervous people thinking about them raising the threat level, wondering "What's going to happen now?", because the bastards who brought us the idea of having a "terror threat level" have this country afraid of its own shadow. That right there is the whole point of the "terror threat level": It is the most convenient device ever conceived for being able to have a whole nation's emotions on a dial, when they need to distract the masses from something or if they need to stoke the fear factor to try to get the masses to not grumble too much over whatever latest atrocious intrusion into the average citizen's privacy etc., all they have to do is turn up the dial.

A similar device is the "conveniently" timed "Al Qaeda" videos/audio tapes. Ever notice how whenever the Cheney/Bush regime is having a particularly rough time of it or wants to make a point about something, along comes an "Al Qaeda" tape, nice and juicy for their talking points? They have even quoted them word for word before. Besides, there's a reason bin Laden twice denied having anything to do with 9/11, then well AFTER the war in Afghanistan was started, either U.S. Army special forces or C.I.A. "found" a tape in a bombed-out ruin of an abandoned house, the "Osama" "confession tape", featuring TWO Osama bin Ladens, one the real one and one much heavier-set, eating with the wrong hand, with a different looking face. The fake one is in the "confession" parts of the tape. Immediately when this tape was "found" it drew intense scrutiny and was quickly determined (by everyone OUTSIDE of the U.S.) to be fake. But in the U.S. it was taken as after-the-fact "proof" of his involvement. Apparantly not enough for the F.B.I. however to try to get a grand jury to hand down an indictment of bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, because it has admitted it has no concrete evidence against him regarding 9/11 and that's why his wanted poster doesn't mention it. It mentions the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but not 9/11. Ever read 1984 by George Orwell? Remember the character Emmanuel Goldstein, who was supposedly some dissident who lived overseas and hated Big Brother's government? How he came on the "telescreens" every day for 2 minutes to stir up hatred in the people there and get them focused on an external threat instead of how shitty their own government was? And remember how later in the book we find out that Emmanuel Goldstein is most likely not even a real person but instead is probably a character created by Big Brother's government specifically for the purpose of inciting hatred to distract the masses and keep them focused on an "external threat"?

Enlightenment said...

Now, I'm not saying Osama bin Laden is a pure fabrication cut from whole cloth (though he did have an extensive working relationship with the C.I.A. back when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and also during the Yugoslav civil war). Al Qaeda IS (apparantly) a real organization and has (apparantly) carried out attacks against the U.S. and American interests before. And THAT is what made them the ideal patsy for 9/11. However, since we can see that there is a mountain of evidence absolving Al Qaeda and damning the Cheney/Bush administration, in fact that the "official" story is not just unlikely but downright physically impossible, nobody who has looked at the details of 9/11 can reasonably come to the conclusion it was planned by a man living in a cave in Afghanistan and carried out by "19 hijackers". And since we know the "official" story to be at odds with the laws of physics, of the law of averages, and just plain common sense, and since this becomes readily apparant to anyone taking a half hour to look into the details of 9/11, by extension it only takes simple deductive reasoning to be able to tell that the ones who keep feeding us this IMPOSSIBLE myth while refusing to even consider any other possibilities, THAT tells you who was really behind 9/11. The ones who keep insisting on the impossible in the face of overwhelming evidence that shitcans their myth. Yes, there are groups out there that really hate the U.S. and with very good reasons, but they cannot make the impossible possible. They cannot defy the laws of physics any more than can you or I. So before anyone can have an honest, realistic discussion about the "war on terror" it is necessary that they first are honest with themselves and admit to themselves the truth behind 9/11 and the "war on terror", which itself necessitates looking into the details instead of accepting everything at face value that is told to them by the government and the blowdried shitbags on the "news". If one half of a discussion knows the truth and the other half "knows" only what they've been spoonfed it can never be a real discussion because they aren't on the same page, not even in the same book. As for Al Qaeda it is unclear just how much of what they do is genuine and how much of it is being a boogeyman at the disposal of the Cheney/Bush administration. This much IS clear however: They had nothing to do with the most spectacular event they are blamed for. Any rational, realistic, intelligent discussion of the bogus "war on terror" needs to start with acknowledgement of that glaring fact.