ISIS and USA

[4444]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

Hopefully it'll be swift and before anything else barbaric happens to innocent people anywhere in the world

there you go, fixed for your insensitivity and nimby-ism.

[StylinRed]

that would be impossible though as barbaric things are happening as we speak against innocent civilians by ISIS' hands a realistic hope would be what i wrote...of course all of us wish for the tragedies to end swiftly for those under ISIS' immediate vicinty but again that's not going to be possible (the Brits are expecting the campaign to take at least 1 year)

[mr_chin]

Going back a while ago, ISIS captured US convoy, tanks, and warfare in the middle east. US has stated before that if their weaponry are captured, the first thing they will do is launch an airstrike to take it out. Their priority is to not let their own weapon get into the enemies' hands, yet nothing was done then.

Do people actually believe airstrikes will take out ground troops of a militant group? Are people so naive to believe the US is in Syria for ISIS? The US has used this tactic before in Iraq, and is doing it again in Syria. Fund a terrorist group to destabilize the targeted country, and then move in and use every reasoning to "help". Several Syrian civilians have already been killed because of these airstrikes, and people believe they're there to take out ISIS, lol.

The US doesn't want to use their own troops since there's already a rebellion going on. Kill the enemy with his own knife, arm local rebels to take out the Assad regime, while the US sit back and have a glass of champagne. Now Britain says they have to arm 15,000 rebels in order to take out ISIS. The sole purpose of US going into Syria is for oil and nuclear weapons.

What level of threat is ISIS at the moment to the US? 0. Nothing has happened yet in the good old America. No American troops has been injured or killed by ISIS and the US wants to so call take ISIS out. Not even Assad himself has done anything to threaten or harm the US. Obama sure is rushing into this. At least Bush plot out every reason and sacrificed many troops to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to take out Saddam and Bin Laden. If the US wants to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth, they can do so without an difficulty at all. As long as ISIS exists, they have reasons to invade countries in the middle east.

The US is really good at using mainstream media to deceive the public, and all the videos showing ISIS threatening the US that they will hang their flag at the white house, is probably all enacted. The beheading, all of them, doesn't even show the process of the head coming off, doesn't even show blood squirting from their neck, and people are going "OMG, ISIS needs to be stopped".

[multicartual]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

The US is really good at using mainstream media to deceive the public, and all the videos showing ISIS threatening the US that they will hang their flag at the white house, is probably all enacted. The beheading, all of them, doesn't even show the process of the head coming off, doesn't even show blood squirting from their neck, and people are going "OMG, ISIS needs to be stopped".

Life is just one giant reality show

[cheeky_scrub]

Did anyone see the Kurds fighting ISIS at the Turkish border this morning on CNN?

They have balls of steel. If there's any group in this mess I have the most faith in, it's the Kurds

[Traum]

Mr. Chin,

I'd have to disagree with a lot of what you've written above.

With 2 American journalists getting publicly beheaded and broadcast around the world, do you expect the US to just stand back and do nothing? The entire Congress, both the Democrats and Republicans, and the general American population are expecting and pressuring Obama to do something. It doesn't need to have anything to do with oil, money, or nuclear weapons. When Americans are publicly killed by "enemies of the state" in this manner, American citizens expects their government to stand up and beat the crap out of whoever it is.

[mikemhg]

I tend to very much agree with Mr Chin's post above.

This whole ISIS scenario just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Something smells stinky about this one; I'm just not buying it. How does the US even know the exact assets that ISIS has in the first place? I've watched countless docs about ISIS, and I still do not understand how they are even operating without the US intentionally allowing them to.

That entire region is under MASSIVE satellite surveillance, how in the world can ISIS be running these Oil Field operations where they are pumping and refining this oil, then selling it on the black market? How is this not easily identified and seen by US surveillance drones and satellites? You would think it would be pretty straightforward to blow those people running these oil fields in ISIS territory right off the face earth, it's not like it would be difficult to identify these sites from the smoke and oil sludge that is generally all over the place of these sites.

It just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever, I'm not saying ISIS doesn't exist, but this really does seem like a false flag to me. It's ironic that the American public was so disgusted with the idea of a Syrian war, the administration goes back to the drawing board, and suddenly ISIS is all over the media, and have become this massive threat and reason to enter that region once again. Now we have the perfect excuse to jump into a country that the American public had no taste to do so last year.

Seems very convenient.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

I tend to very much agree with Mr Chin's post above.

This whole ISIS scenario just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Something smells stinky about this one; I'm just not buying it. How does the US even know the exact assets that ISIS has in the first place? I've watched countless docs about ISIS, and I still do not understand how they are even operating without the US intentionally allowing them to.

That entire region is under MASSIVE satellite surveillance, how in the world can ISIS be running these Oil Field operations where they are pumping and refining this oil, then selling it on the black market? How is this not easily identified and seen by US surveillance drones and satellites? You would think it would be pretty straightforward to blow those people running these oil fields in ISIS territory right off the face earth, it's not like it would be difficult to identify these sites from the smoke and oil sludge that is generally all over the place of these sites.

It just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever, I'm not saying ISIS doesn't exist, but this really does seem like a false flag to me. It's ironic that the American public was so disgusted with the idea of a Syrian war, the administration goes back to the drawing board, and suddenly ISIS is all over the media, and have become this massive threat and reason to enter that region once again. Now we have the perfect excuse to jump into a country that the American public had no taste to do so last year.

Seems very convenient.

US was allowing it by not acting because they did not want to go back to Iraq. Also those mobile oil refineries are no more because the US blew them up a few days ago.

[cheeky_scrub]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

It's ironic that the American public was so disgusted with the idea of a Syrian war, the administration goes back to the drawing board, and suddenly ISIS is all over the media, and have become this massive threat and reason to enter that region once again. Now we have the perfect excuse to jump into a country that the American public had no taste to do so last year.

I want to address this.

The reason, I think, that there was so much opposition to an intervention in Syria was two fold. One, it was an internal conflict (Syrians killing Syrians), and Americans feared a military intervention would only fuck up the region even more; and two, there was no clear cut evidence genocide as in Bosnia, Croatia, Albania.

Iraq, an ally of the US, was in danger of collapsing under the threat of ISIS. ISIS was threatening the consulate in Erbil (remember when they were marching to Baghdad? Obama sent in "advisors" and suddenly their progress stopped). The Peshmerga needed help (and they owed the Kurds big time after dropping the ball on Saddam's gassing campaigns), so the US came in to protect their interests.

Now, they have to cut off the threat at the source, which is in Syria. Why they didn't take on ISIS years before is another matter.

I don't know whether I agree with this logic, but that's how I think the US sees it.

[RRxtar]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

Going back a while ago, ISIS captured US convoy, tanks, and warfare in the middle east. US has stated before that if their weaponry are captured, the first thing they will do is launch an airstrike to take it out. Their priority is to not let their own weapon get into the enemies' hands, yet nothing was done then.

Do people actually believe airstrikes will take out ground troops of a militant group? Are people so naive to believe the US is in Syria for ISIS? The US has used this tactic before in Iraq, and is doing it again in Syria. Fund a terrorist group to destabilize the targeted country, and then move in and use every reasoning to "help". Several Syrian civilians have already been killed because of these airstrikes, and people believe they're there to take out ISIS, lol.

The US doesn't want to use their own troops since there's already a rebellion going on. Kill the enemy with his own knife, arm local rebels to take out the Assad regime, while the US sit back and have a glass of champagne. Now Britain says they have to arm 15,000 rebels in order to take out ISIS. The sole purpose of US going into Syria is for oil and nuclear weapons.

What level of threat is ISIS at the moment to the US? 0. Nothing has happened yet in the good old America. No American troops has been injured or killed by ISIS and the US wants to so call take ISIS out. Not even Assad himself has done anything to threaten or harm the US. Obama sure is rushing into this. At least Bush plot out every reason and sacrificed many troops to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to take out Saddam and Bin Laden. If the US wants to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth, they can do so without an difficulty at all. As long as ISIS exists, they have reasons to invade countries in the middle east.

The US is really good at using mainstream media to deceive the public, and all the videos showing ISIS threatening the US that they will hang their flag at the white house, is probably all enacted. The beheading, all of them, doesn't even show the process of the head coming off, doesn't even show blood squirting from their neck, and people are going "OMG, ISIS needs to be stopped".

stopped taking your post seriously when you said OBAMA and BUSH make any decisions on their own at all.

[cheeky_scrub]

Lol, Obama rushed into this? He's been incredibly cautious in forming a coalition; Bush went full cowboy into Iraq.

[Ludepower]

ISIS is fake?
They've declared their own state by redrawing borders.
I dont know what the end game looks like but they're taunting the most powerful nation in the world into a war.
Theres no riddles this time.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Traum

Mr. Chin,

I'd have to disagree with a lot of what you've written above.

With 2 American journalists getting publicly beheaded and broadcast around the world, do you expect the US to just stand back and do nothing? The entire Congress, both the Democrats and Republicans, and the general American population are expecting and pressuring Obama to do something. It doesn't need to have anything to do with oil, money, or nuclear weapons. When Americans are publicly killed by "enemies of the state" in this manner, American citizens expects their government to stand up and beat the crap out of whoever it is.

Yes, and this is where the whole media thing comes in. Resort back to my post and I've explained how the beheading could possibly be fake. Who films a beheading without the actual head being severed and calls it a threat to a nation? It shows an introductory, the beginning process of the beheading, and the end result of the victim. A cheap low budget film industry can act this out on television any day.

If the US really wants to do something, why not send in ground troops? Wouldn't then, their priority is to get these hostages out and not take out oil rigs and such? And to do so, wouldn't you need ground troops to go into Syria like how they went into Iraq and Afghanistan to flush Osama and Saddam out? Airstrikes evidently will not take out ISIS. Airstrikes evidently is there to take out bases, land, etc. and to this day, civilians have been killed along with ISIS militants. These civilians are killed in the surrounding of their homes. For the US to jeopardize civilian lives to kill terrorist members makes the US no difference than a terrorist themselves.

Originally Posted by RRxtar

stopped taking your post seriously when you said OBAMA and BUSH make any decisions on their own at all.

I'm sorry, I should be more specific and put in the word administration. I'm not directly stating that the one president is making the decision, but the era of the president.

When I said Obama rushed into this, I meant that he has no reasonable cause to enter Syria with airstrikes whereas Bush waited until 9/11 before really doing anything. Keep in mind that the US had already planned an invasion in Syria YEARS AGO and their main purpose there is to take out the Assad regime, this is why I meant "rushed". Again, ISIS has no threat to the American homeland at the moment. Every threat has yet to be carried out. There is no reports of US civilians or troops killed by ISIS to this day, other than the so-called beheading. There is even a stupid live interview with an former Canadian ISIS member (face uncovered) over skype by Vice News, and he basically came clean saying that there are ISIS member in the US mobilizing for an attack. HOW STUPID CAN THAT BE? All of these media showing ISIS sounds like a tactic to stir up the Americans' anger and support the airstrikes in Syria.

This is no war. ISIS alone doesn't stand a chance against a nation with high end military warfare. Their weapons belong to the US and are ground base only. They're not heat seeking missiles, they're not weapons that can intercept missile attacks. They're not weapons that can take out an F-16. The US is making this sound bigger than it is.

Only time will tell what will happen next. Sudan is my guess.

[Manic!]

Hey Mr. Chin have you searched online for the beheading video?


Maybe RS can raise some money to sent you to the middle east to find out if ISIS is real or not.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

Yes, and this is where the whole media thing comes in. Resort back to my post and I've explained how the beheading could possibly be fake. Who films a beheading without the actual head being severed and calls it a threat to a nation? It shows an introductory, the beginning process of the beheading, and the end result of the victim. A cheap low budget film industry can act this out on television any day.

I am not going to discuss the authenticity of the beheading. The chances of it being fake seems pretty slim, and the chances of the hostages not being dead is pretty much next to zero.

If the US really wants to do something, why not send in ground troops? Wouldn't then, their priority is to get these hostages out and not take out oil rigs and such? And to do so, wouldn't you need ground troops to go into Syria like how they went into Iraq and Afghanistan to flush Osama and Saddam out? Airstrikes evidently will not take out ISIS. Airstrikes evidently is there to take out bases, land, etc. and to this day, civilians have been killed along with ISIS militants. These civilians are killed in the surrounding of their homes. For the US to jeopardize civilian lives to kill terrorist members makes the US no difference than a terrorist themselves.

The US will not send ground troops because the public backlash as a result of the soldiers' deaths and injuries are far too high. The associated costs of ground troop deployment are also going to be very high. Committing ground troops deployment will amount to political suicide, and Obama is at least smart enough to see that.

Additionally, had the US send in ground troops, they will unavoidably become the primary force in the fighting, and that will inevitably lead to higher attempts / occurrences of terror attacks at home on US soil. By limiting their commitment to air strikes, surveillance, and intel gathering, it necessitates the involvement from other countries. Should any retaliatory terror attacks occur, at least the US will not be the only target. More importantly, by involving Islamic allies, the US can avoid getting the military action being labelled as anti-Islamic and anti-Muslims.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Hey Mr. Chin have you searched online for the beheading video?


Maybe RS can raise some money to sent you to the middle east to find out if ISIS is real or not.

Spoiler!

http://www.barenakedislam.com/catego...adings-graphic

Op-Ed Daily » WARNING: Extremely Graphic Video of James Wright Foley Beheading

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/0...ic-state-isis/

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO - Jihadi John beheads David Haines (FULL VIDEO) - Middle East - International - News - Catholic Online

I gathered this for you. The first link shows ACTUAL beheading and the whole process of it. These videos literally makes you cringe.

The rest are the ISIS beheading... all of them shows the knife slicing back and forth ten or more times with no blood. Not to mention, the knife doesn't even sink into the neck. To think that someone is going to execute another, with what looks like a combat knife, they would be extremely sharp. Ten or more slices would pretty slice right to the bone, with blood squirting out of the arteries.

Lastly, I didn't say ISIS was fake, I said these beheading more than likely are. All the news and media headline have "EXTREME GRAPHIC", "UNCENSORED", etc. to hype up this false alert.

Stop believing mainstream media. This is the worst false alert to use to invade a country because no actual evidence of it is and will be found. Spend less than $1000 dollar per video, and suddenly the president of United States has authorization for airstrikes in one of the countries with the most oil.

Originally Posted by Traum

I am not going to discuss the authenticity of the beheading. The chances of it being fake seems pretty slim, and the chances of the hostages not being dead is pretty much next to zero.

The chances of it being real seems pretty slim BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF THE BEHEADING. The chances of the hostages not being dead is pretty arguable since NO ONE SAW THEM DIED.

Originally Posted by Traum

The US will not send ground troops because the public backlash as a result of the soldiers' deaths and injuries are far too high. The associated costs of ground troop deployment are also going to be very high. Committing ground troops deployment will amount to political suicide, and Obama is at least smart enough to see that.

What info do you have supporting the cost of ground troops. What difference is it to send in ground troops in Iraq vs Al Qaeda and Syria? Oh yeah, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq for oil, they were actually there for terrorism.

When you want to flush out certain groups and leaders from a country, you send in troops because it is the most efficient and effective way. When you want to take out bases and establishments, you send in airstrikes, ground troops and tanks will definitely not get that done.

Originally Posted by Traum

Additionally, had the US send in ground troops, they will unavoidably become the primary force in the fighting, and that will inevitably lead to higher attempts / occurrences of terror attacks at home on US soil. By limiting their commitment to air strikes, surveillance, and intel gathering, it necessitates the involvement from other countries. Should any retaliatory terror attacks occur, at least the US will not be the only target. More importantly, by involving Islamic allies, the US can avoid getting the military action being labelled as anti-Islamic and anti-Muslims.

I think by now, the whole world knows that the attack in Syria is lead by the Americans, if ANYONE is going to be attacked, it will be the US first. So to think they are trying to divert enemy focus is very naive. Not to mention, ISIS is certainly incapable of doing any sort of damage to the US. To even bring any destruction to NA, you're speaking of China and Russia, ISIS? No way.

Local rebels first priority, is the Assad regime, not ISIS. And now you have a country, strong in military warfare, arming them and training them, in hopes they'll destroy ISIS? Maybe so, but afterwards who's next? The bold line is probably the least the US has to worry about. You really think the US would be afraid of false claims by any country? The US is pretty much already under false claims by Russia and Americans themselves. And how about WWII? They don't care, as long as the job is done and they have a good explanation (which they will) to cover up everything.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

What info do you have supporting the cost of ground troops. What difference is it to send in ground troops in Iraq vs Al Qaeda and Syria? Oh yeah, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq for oil, they were actually there for terrorism.

Err... lemme see:

Sending ground troops:
The costs of sending troops, weaponry, support personnel, establishing new base camps, etc.
The costs of sending injured troops back to the US and their associated medical and post-injury costs.

Conduct air strikes:
The costs of sending planes (or possibly drones) out from already established permanent military camps.
Near zero risk of injury to air force members.

Yeah, I really think sending in ground troops is gonna be the cheaper method.

When you want to flush out certain groups and leaders from a country, you send in troops because it is the most efficient and effective way. When you want to take out bases and establishments, you send in airstrikes, ground troops and tanks will definitely not get that done.

I don't dispute these plain and obvious facts. But the fact of the matter is, Obama does not want to deploy troops out again, when he has only just withdrawl the majority of troops back from Iraq. Doing so would amount to political suicide for him and the Democrats. Unless there is widespread desire from both the US and the international community, he is not going send in ground troops.

I think by now, the whole world knows that the attack in Syria is lead by the Americans, if ANYONE is going to be attacked, it will be the US first. So to think they are trying to divert enemy focus is very naive. Not to mention, ISIS is certainly incapable of doing any sort of damage to the US. To even bring any destruction to NA, you're speaking of China and Russia, ISIS? No way.

US first, yes. But US alone, no. Why was the British journalist beheaded? Why was the French tourist killed? By rounding up a host of different countries from around the world to support this attack, the US wants to make sure that the international community is splitting / sharing the risks of local home grown terror attacks.

Also, your claim that IS cannot bring any destruction to NA is just completely naive. If Al Qaeda can organize plane hijackings and plane bombs and such, certainly IS can pull off the same thing if they divert enough effort and resources into it. Don't forget that a good number of IS' fighters are coming from the international community as well, including Americans. I do not know how likely such a terror attack could happen, but it certainly seems possible.

The bold line is probably the least the US has to worry about. You really think the US would be afraid of false claims by any country? The US is pretty much already under false claims by Russia and Americans themselves. And how about WWII? They don't care, as long as the job is done and they have a good explanation (which they will) to cover up everything.

You are completely missing my point. The US most definitely has an interest in avoiding being labelled as anti-Islam because it does not want to attract any finger pointing from American Islam groups, nor does it want to give any excuses to radical Muslims, abroad or local to the US, to carry out terror attacks within the US.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Traum

Err... lemme see:

Sending ground troops:
The costs of sending troops, weaponry, support personnel, establishing new base camps, etc.
The costs of sending injured troops back to the US and their associated medical and post-injury costs.

Conduct air strikes:
The costs of sending planes (or possibly drones) out from already established permanent military camps.
Near zero risk of injury to air force members.

Yeah, I really think sending in ground troops is gonna be the cheaper method.

Lol where did you interpret my post to ask for a difference in cost and which is cheaper? I simply ask where you get information on the cost of sending in ground troops and the difference in purpose.

Originally Posted by Traum

Also, your claim that IS cannot bring any destruction to NA is just completely naive. If Al Qaeda can organize plane hijackings and plane bombs and such, certainly IS can pull off the same thing if they divert enough effort and resources into it. Don't forget that a good number of IS' fighters are coming from the international community as well, including Americans. I do not know how likely such a terror attack could happen, but it certainly seems possible.

Did you just claimed that 9/11 was not staged?

Keep watching the news and soak in every information buddy. End of discussion after that 9/11 claim.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

Did you just claimed that 9/11 was not staged?

Keep watching the news and soak in every information buddy. End of discussion after that 9/11 claim.

You're right. Conspiracy theory crap belongs in Fight Club, ideally in CIC's thread.

You've lost all credibility with that first sentence.

[Yodamaster]

Guys, chill out, it's a bunch of middle eastern rednecks fucking up their own part of the world. There are more important domestic issues that require our attention, stop artificially sizing these assholes up, facist "states" run by radicals are nothing new.

Do you honestly think that a few radicals are going to be an issue domestically? There are more neo nazis in Canada than there are ISIS wannabe assholes, we outnumber them completely. The fear spawned by 9/11 was not warranted, sometimes the right thing to do is just move on and stop worrying about the what-if scenarios. The bus I ride could explode into a million pieces, it'd suck, but I would not want my country to go to war over it when the culprit was some extremist punk, our rage only fuels them.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Lomac

You're right. Conspiracy theory crap belongs in Fight Club, ideally in CIC's thread.

You've lost all credibility with that first sentence.

Lol, I think by now, 9/11 is known to be an inside job. You can say there is no physical evidence surrounding it. I can also say there is no evidence to prove that Al Qaeda hijacked the planes. So who's side is the conspiracy?

[StylinRed]

I'm sorry Chin but there really isn't any reason for multiple, fake, beheading videos...do you really think the reporters and that ex-raf aid worker are still alive somewhere?

there are countless civilians being beheaded and ISIS has placed their heads on posts throughout cities it's not like beheading is beneath them...

or do you think that these beheading videos were created to simply entice the west in going into syria/iraq to take out isis? i don't think an excuse was needed everyone was on board already but simply dragging their feet waiting for america

and if they are fake videos to entice the west those 3 victims would have to be killed anyway so why wouldn't they be beheaded for the video...

i don't know, i'm sorry, i'm trying to make sense of thinking that they're fake videos but i just don't see it

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

mr chin, try not to validate internal feelings with internal values or an internal construct of how things are.

it creates a false loop. you must always validate the internal, with external, and vice versa.

Basically use your logic and sensing and project it outwards... look around and observe empirical evidence (by empirical i mean hard facts that have been verified by all), and realise that most of your theories are not reflected in reality... but as they rely almost entirely on internal validation. Your internal intuition will go to any lengths to justify your internal feeling/emotion based suspicions.

otherwise, be serious, you're just validating internal facts (facts only you believe), with internal feelings... feelings only you feel. There is NO validation there. You're just preaching to the choir, and you are the preacher and choir. kinda get my drift?

there always has to be a balance of validations or it's just a slippery slope of self imagination backed up by self feeling.

A reverse example is someone validating external feedback with external feedback. Perhaps someone needing external validation of their actions, and then looping it by backing it up with external validation of the senses. The more feedback they get, the more wild they think they can be, i'm sure we all know people like this and they always push it to the edge. The guy that parties too hard, and the troll are some of the few examples.

the internal loop creates schizoid type paranoid thinking. the external loop creates this kinda enjoyment trollish extreme sense bombardment. both are unbalanced in personality.

another example of complete internal loop validation is when you dream. thats why things in dreams always make sense no matter how weird or crazy they are. because it's just internal projection validated by internal values and systems. it's just a big infinite loop of self validation. anything can make sense when that happens. whether it's a positive or negative loop (both blind), depend on emotions, as the data is skewed to one or the other as it passes through the emotion filter in the mind.

lol kinda off topic, but yeah, mr chin... your responses in this thread are kinda off from how you usually post. Just something I noticed. No offence meant or anything. Just stating what I know. Take what you will.

[cheeky_scrub]

Originally Posted by mr_chin

Lol, I think by now, 9/11 is known to be an inside job. You can say there is no physical evidence surrounding it. I can also say there is no evidence to prove that Al Qaeda hijacked the planes. So who's side is the conspiracy?

1. The 9/11 first responders (and search dogs) who came down with all sorts of horrible illnesses. That's as physical as you can get.

2. OBL personally claimed responsibility for 9/11. Two of the hijackers were known al-Qaeda members on the FBI's watch list long before 9/11.

Seriously, it's okay to have a skeptical eye about events, but your conclusions should come from the evidence, not the other way around.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

mr chin, try not to validate internal feelings with internal values or an internal construct of how things are.

it creates a false loop. you must always validate the internal, with external, and vice versa.

Basically use your logic and sensing and project it outwards... look around and observe empirical evidence (by empirical i mean hard facts that have been verified by all), and realise that most of your theories are not reflected in reality... but as they rely almost entirely on internal validation. Your internal intuition will go to any lengths to justify your internal feeling/emotion based suspicions.

otherwise, be serious, you're just validating internal facts (facts only you believe), with internal feelings... feelings only you feel. There is NO validation there. You're just preaching to the choir, and you are the preacher and choir. kinda get my drift?

there always has to be a balance of validations or it's just a slippery slope of self imagination backed up by self feeling.

A reverse example is someone validating external feedback with external feedback. Perhaps someone needing external validation of their actions, and then looping it by backing it up with external validation of the senses. The more feedback they get, the more wild they think they can be, i'm sure we all know people like this and they always push it to the edge. The guy that parties too hard, and the troll are some of the few examples.

the internal loop creates schizoid type paranoid thinking. the external loop creates this kinda enjoyment trollish extreme sense bombardment. both are unbalanced in personality.

another example of complete internal loop validation is when you dream. thats why things in dreams always make sense no matter how weird or crazy they are. because it's just internal projection validated by internal values and systems. it's just a big infinite loop of self validation. anything can make sense when that happens. whether it's a positive or negative loop (both blind), depend on emotions, as the data is skewed to one or the other as it passes through the emotion filter in the mind.

lol kinda off topic, but yeah, mr chin... your responses in this thread are kinda off from how you usually post. Just something I noticed. No offence meant or anything. Just stating what I know. Take what you will.

This is really getting off topic, but I'll say this. When it comes to things like this, it's all about what you believe. Do you really need internal and external validation on what you believe? It's certainly debatable and this is where the "loop" you mention comes in, it'll continue to go around and around, and we'll never get to the end of it.

I am a guy that believe what I see and don't see, and everything I said was based on that. Beheading? Didn't see it, so not going to believe it. Tower fell demolished style? Saw it, so I believe it was planned. Didn't see members of Al Qaeda hijacked the airplanes, not going to believe it. ISIS is a threat to America, saw the claim, didn't see the threat, I'll take it as that. You get my drift.

Originally Posted by cheeky_scrub

1. The 9/11 first responders (and search dogs) who came down with all sorts of horrible illnesses. That's as physical as you can get.

2. OBL personally claimed responsibility for 9/11. Two of the hijackers were known al-Qaeda members on the FBI's watch list long before 9/11.

Seriously, it's okay to have a skeptical eye about events, but your conclusions should come from the evidence, not the other way around.

I'll admit, I base my conclusion on assumptions, how the towers fell, and interviews with eye witnesses of what they saw and heard. To tie all of that to what I already saw, it's hard to believe, and no matter how much people try to convince, that the towers fell from jet fuel and was not demolished.

Anyways, this topic is not about 9/11, so that's that.