• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

Just read that more than 100 passengers aboard MA flight 777 were Aids experts.. awaits the inevitable conspiracy theories surrounding it..

I had someone today jump to that exact conclusion when I mentioned the researchers - had to explain that, no, it was just a plane flying over a war zone. But upon hearing that one fact in isolation that was their first reaction. Sometimes it is easier to believe that everything is somehow connected than the awful truth.
 
There's one documentary on Youtube about Hitler being Obama's dad, which is ridiculous. But there's also one about Malcolm X being his dad, which stunned me, as he looks and talks EXACTLY the same. Just darker in colouring, but the ideas, vocabulary, and cadence in his speaking is exactly the same.

This makes me wonder, but anyway, this is what I mean by black men making something of themselves. Like by looking up to someone like Malcolm X they might become president. Instead of being screwed over by MTV and ending up spending life in prison.

I know this is controversial, but it's true for sure. There's something to really admire about Malcolm X that strikes you at once, similar to when you look at Michael Jackson. By the way, in case some schizophrenic person happens to be reading this it doesn't mean I'm racist.
 
I am a little drunk so forgive me if I have this wrong, but it would seem to me, your post implies that whilst it is possible for black men to "make something of themselves", fewer do than people of other (presumably predominantly white, but I admit that is an assumption on my part) races, and that the reason for this is that fewer black men (what about black women btw? :P) idolise positive black role models and get caught up in popular/MTV culture that I am guessing you are equating to gangsta/thug culture.

I think that is a little racist, or perhaps ignorant is a better word, largely because it fails to account for the social and economic reasons that these attitudes develop in the first place. The fact of the matter is African American's have been intentionally and systemically held back in the United States in more ways than I could probably count or am even aware of, but I believe educational inequality would be one for starters, which clearly creates problems from the get go. I can easily see where a common perception among disillusioned and underprivileged black people could be that a lot of these positive black role models essentially wasted their time, given the fact African American's are still hugely discriminated against in many ways to this day, whereas it is easy to see the attraction in fast money and the only real prospect a lot of people in these communities have to earn anything substantially above minimum wage is to engage in drug dealing or other crimes. Especially when you consider the multitude of ways in which whites have created a system to fuck blacks, not only do they get to earn an income they could never imagine by engaging in illegal activities but it is also a fuck you to the system that has been created by their (inarguably at one time, arguably still to this day) oppressor.

It is easy to look at two groups of people and say one acts this way and another acts another way, but that observation in itself is pretty much meaningless. The real question is what causes these differences and if you truly believe that this difference is purely (or even significantly) racial then there is only one word for you and that is racist.
 
Last edited:
You know Blacks are accepted into medical schools at disproportionately higher rates than any other peoples? Their GPA and MCATs can be lower and they still disproportionatly are accepted at higher rates than Whites, Hispanics, and Asians (Asians have it the worst) with higher scores.

I don't believe there is any organized effort to hold them back, at least nothing you're going to find data on that someone won't be able to find more data on the contrary to. There may still be psychological, individual reasons (individuals might be 'racist'... I worked at a Jimmy Johns a few years ago and the manager wouldnt even interview Blacks)... But affirmative action is in many ways unbalanced and unfair to other peoples. A recent college said it was legal for them to discriminate against Whites. 'Diversity' is forced.

For the GPA and MCAT scores being lower and Blacks still disproportionatly being accepted more so than other peoples with higher scores, some people will argue that the interview is a big deal and somehow Blacks do better at this, perhaps because they face more challenges (character...) to get to where they get and that impresses interviewers.

But there are many programs to help Blacks. And 'affirmative action' (and forced diversity) based on 'race' needs to end. At least it needs an overhaul of sorts.

As for calling Ninae a racist... I'm not sure what that accomplishes. I wish people would tone down the use of the word and take the time to formulate some other way of speaking their mind. Racist also means different things for different people.
 
Last edited:
I don't see what it accomplishes in many of cases that it's used... Other than being an attempt to shame a person.
 
Last edited:
I don't see what it accomplishes in many of cases that it's used... Other than being an attempt to shame a person.

Well, take you for example - I tried to engage you on the issues you raised but rather than actually defend your position you just got defensive and ignored pretty much everything I'd said. So, yeah, shaming it is - you deserve to be shamed.
 
I don't recall you having any respect for the issues, as they might have relevance from my angle. You immediately called me a racist pretty much from what I remember. There was no attempt to engage... But just to call me an uneducated ignorant idiot that needs to read some textbooks. You may have engaged at later points in some ways but you didn't set a good stage to begin with. Your reasons then to begin? I'm a racist and shouldn't be engaged/given the time.

What did I ignore? I know we are talking about another thread. Here I was referring to another person being called a racist to begin with. I'm just tired of it. You can call me a racist all you want. I'm incapable of being shamed by you, Mr. "what's the point in life and why did my brother have a child and buttholes are the same as vaginas and everything is gray and equal... And that's the way I like it." :D
 
Last edited:
You know Blacks are accepted into medical schools at disproportionately higher rates than any other peoples? Their GPA and MCATs can be lower and they still disproportionatly are accepted at higher rates than Whites, Hispanics, and Asians (Asians have it the worst) with higher scores.

I don't believe there is any organized effort to hold them back, at least nothing you're going to find data on that someone won't be able to find more data on the contrary to. There may still be psychological, individual reasons (individuals might be 'racist'... I worked at a Jimmy Johns a few years ago and the manager wouldnt even interview Blacks)... But affirmative action is in many ways unbalanced and unfair to other peoples. A recent college said it was legal for them to discriminate against Whites. 'Diversity' is forced.

For the GPA and MCAT scores being lower and Blacks still disproportionatly being accepted more so than other peoples with higher scores, some people will argue that the interview is a big deal and somehow Blacks do better at this, perhaps because they face more challenges (character...) to get to where they get and that impresses interviewers.

But there are many programs to help Blacks. And 'affirmative action' (and forced diversity) based on 'race' needs to end. At least it needs an overhaul of sorts.

As for calling Ninae a racist... I'm not sure what that accomplishes. I wish people would tone down the use of the word and take the time to formulate some other way of speaking their mind. Racist also means different things for different people.

Letting more African American's into College and University, despite them scoring lower on average, sounds like a pretty pointless token solution somebody has came up with. Until you improve the quality of inner city education at an elementary and secondary school level then letting people into College programs that may go over their heads is pointless. I don't see how this over acceptance into College is an indication that Blacks are not held back educationally.

I didn't actually call Ninae a racist, what I said was that I may have misunderstood what they said, but if I did not then my personal opinion is that the statement they made was racist or ignorant.

I did also say "It is easy to look at two groups of people and say one acts this way and another acts another way, but that observation in itself is pretty much meaningless. The real question is what causes these differences and if you truly believe that this difference is purely (or even significantly) racial then there is only one word for you and that is racist." I stand by that statement as a true one, I don't believe I passed judgement on what Ninae's beliefs were one way or the other in regards to that statement though.

Also, while it is certainly true that racist means different things to different people, it also has a pretty clear cut definition, and that is (as far as I am aware) a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. As far as I am concerned, anybody who expresses such an opinion is fair game to be called a racist.
 
Last edited:
What if they claim that there are differences in behaviour between races?

/end playing devils advocate.
 
Sorry I should clarify, that scenario is obviously assuming that one behaviour is considered more negative/positive than another, and blaming this negative difference on race. There probably are some minor differences in behaviour of races due to different cultures and the like, but so long as one is not looking down on one behaviour in relation to another then that is not racism.

It felt like to me that Ninae was saying less black people "make something of themselves" as compared to other races, making this observation with the assumption that the primary cause for this difference is race would make it a racist statement, whereas making this observation with the acknowledgement that it is caused by other factors is clearly not racist. For the record I am not intending to comment on whether less black people make something of themselves in relation to other races or not, it is just a claim I felt Ninae was making.
 
Yes. Yes you are.

QFT. and maybe i haven't checked this thread in too-long, but wasn't that 'ninae' whackjob banned from these boards? between the trolling threads in ce&p ("racism" etc, and "god, aren't obamas auras just DO DIE FOR?!?", i thought we were rid of that?...
//am throwing as many hats as i own into bit's corner right now, i know this is the alt/conspiracy (/light-hearted conspiracies) thread but g'damn, let's have some common sense eh?
 
What if they claim that there are differences in behaviour between races?

/end playing devils advocate.

there are obviously differences, this can be proven w/o any doubt. The q's to ask are 'are these differences inherent, or an artifact of cultural scenarios?', or 'are these differernces, after accounting for the past ~15 decades, something that should be used in determining *anything* of value?'
 
^ There are so many reasons it is not funny.

The fact that no other steel structured buildings have collapsed due to being hit by planes or a prolonged fire would be one, if I recall correctly there was one big building in Venezuela that burned for 17 hours and did not collapse. Further, if you want me to believe that jet fuel vapourised at such a high temperature that steel could melt, how in the fuck did they find the passport of one of the hijackers at ground zero? That was so obviously planted.

There is strong evidence that thermite was used at the site of the twin towers. There is no explanation for why tower 7 fell, the 9/11 commission does not even make an attempt to address this. It is also worth noting that the US Government immediately removed as much of the rubble from the site and disposed of it. They did not perform any kind of investigation or analysis to determine if explosive by products were present which could indicate more than just the planes had caused the buildings collapse. This is such a deviation from what would be regarded as standard protocol for preservation of evidence at a crime scene that the only conclusion I can draw is it is part of a cover up.

Looking at the buildings fall it is pretty much identical to controlled demolition, I don't think the towers would of fell in that fashion if what we are told happened is all that happened. Obviously a couple planes hit those buildings that day, but that is not what brought them down, neither are the fires caused by said planes.

George W Bush's brother's company was doing renovations in the twin towers up until 9/11, some people reported that towards the end a lot of the elevators were heavily guarded and employees had no access to some of them. Plenty of people who were in the World Trade Centre's on the day have said that they heard and/or saw explosions, many people reported these came from elevator shafts.

There is not one shred of evidence that The Pentagon was ever hit by a plane, they have surveillance footage which they released enough to see the explosion, but not enough to see the plane, what is the fucking point in that? They are clearly hiding the fact it was a bomb or missile.

I also find it impossible to believe that, just by chance, NORAD happened to be playing war games that day and could not distinguish the threat. Literally on any other day the planes would of been shot out of the sky but apparently Bin Laden and his Saudi cronies hit the fucking lottery there, that is a hard sell to me.

Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind, was reported on dialysis by French Intelligence years before 9/11 took place. The American translation of the famous Bin Laden confession tape added in a bunch of words that he never said to turn his commentary on the events into a confession. The US has authenticated numerous Bin Laden tapes that international intelligence agencies acknowledge are fakes. This doesn't speak directly to the day of 9/11 but it does show consistency in the dishonesty of the American authorities on this issue.

I could go on and on about this shit for hours and it is probably a good 18 months since I watched a documentary or read an article on it. There is heaps of stuff out there that points out all the wild inconsistencies. It would be one thing if anyone ever bothered to address a majority of these, but it has all been swept under the rug. I can't know 100% exactly what happened that day, but I do know that the official story is about as far from the truth as you are ever going to get.
 
Last edited:
^How timely. I'll agree that the entire story has not been told. There are many inconsistencies and no true official record.

I'll begin by thanking the first responders for saving persons that would otherwise been lost, particularly the New York Fire Department/Paramedics. So many more would have been lost without their intervention, with which many of them paid with their lives. <3 There are many who lived to tell due to their efforts.

Bin Laden was definitely on dialysis. He had kidney issues that were known for years. I'm surprised he didn't get a transplant from one of his "martyrs" or that he didn't just off someone and steal a kidney. He must have been really out there... which can and often does happen in end-stage renal failure. Regardless of position, Bin Laden had, and continues to have, significant influence over his followers.

The thing that really gets me is the often-cited picture of GWB reading at an elementary school that morning as his Chief of Staff whispered to him that the country was under attack. Dubya looked genuinely flabbergasted. I had to break the news to my boss that day, as I was working and going to school (working at the time this happened). Sometimes we have to deliver bad news, and sometimes that news is confusing/inconclusive. It still sucked, bigtime, because none of us knew. We still don't.

Here's the article that shows the photo: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2069582,00.html
 
I voted yes only because the "official report" was dodgy or contradictory in some ways, and not that I believe "OMGWTF the g0vt and Bush II planned it all and did it all completely flawlessly!" but because under the Clinton administration the DIA did learn about the plan to hijack planes and the attack plan, and told the information found to the Clinton administration in a report-yet nothing was done.

There was also the 1993 bombing of the WTC under the same presidential administration, and yet not much was done.

Now Bill Clinton is claiming he could have killed Bin Laden but did not.

However I have seen or researched the other theories and the argument that drones were used, or planes on auto-pilot with no passengers, and things being hit by missiles make sense as does the controlled demolition theory on building #7 of the WTC.

The way the report claims that jet fuel melted 3 entire buildings yet the passports of the hijackers were found completely intact and not burnt at all on the streets of NYC is sketchy too.
 
I'm not proffering an opinion either way but just happened to see this report today:

=========================================

It was ironic that the launch of Barack Obama's war on terror coincided with the 13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, doubly so because it meant the president's pitch for Saudi Arabia to join his global coalition coincided with renewed attention on claims that Washington was suppressing evidence of Saudi complicity in the strikes on key US cities.

Initially suppressed by the Bush administration, and still kept under wraps by Obama, 28 pages redacted from a Joint Congressional Inquiry into the attacks are locked in a secure underground store beneath Congress.

The New Yorker magazine quotes Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch on the document offering direct evidence of the complicity "on the part of Saudi individuals and entities in Al-Qaeda's attacks on America". But the same report quotes North Carolina Republican Walter Jones' very different take on a document that he, like Lynch, claims to have read - "it's about the Bush administration and its relationship with the Saudis".

A third member of Congress is quoted on the document providing "very disturbing" evidence of Saudi government support for the September 11 hijackers, most of whom were Saudi. He argues: "the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through?"

Well yes … and no. A subsequent investigation, the so-called 9/11 Commission, looked into the allegations and, commission director Philip Zelikow told The New Yorker his investigators could not substantiate what he described as "wild accusations that needed to be checked out … an agglomeration of preliminary, unvetted reports".

The core allegation in the document reportedly is that two of the hijackers were helped and might have been funded by Saudi diplomats stationed in the US.
Saudi involvement? The World Trade Centre in New York after one of two airliners crashed into it on September 11, 2001.

Saudi involvement? The World Trade Centre in New York after one of two airliners crashed into it on September 11, 2001. Photo: Getty Images

Lawyers acting for the victim families want the document released, in the belief that it will help their legal action against Saudi Arabia and other defendants. Riyadh is on the record demanding that the document be released, so that it can refute what it casts as a bid to "malign our country and our people".

Reflecting the tense complexities of the Washington-Riyadh relationship and perhaps the human rights shortcomings of most of his regional allies, Obama refrained from naming Riyadh and any of the other Sunni capitals in his address to the nation on Wednesday evening.

Similarly he shied away from any attempt to assign them particular tasks as would-be members of a coalition he has charged with destroying the brutal jihadi Islamic State, which has taken control of swathes of Syria and Iraq.

Collectively the Arab countries have enormous military and security apparatuses. But it seems that apart from controlling the flow of fighters and funds to the conflict, the Saudis' only big-ticket commitment is to train fighters for the Free Syrian Army, considered to be a moderate element among the various rebel and insurgent forces fighting in Syria.

A coyly worded communique issued after a meeting of representatives of 10 Middle Eastern governments and US Secretary of State John Kerry in the Saudi city of Jeddah on Thursday made no reference to the Saudi training commitment that was leaked by US officials.

Mentioning no specifics, the statement called for a coordinated military campaign, with all nations present at the meeting contributing "as appropriate". Likewise, it made only glancing references to what American officials said would be specific requests for the Arab governments to be more vocal in condemning IS and to enlist government-owned media, like Al Jazeera, and their religious leadership to do likewise.

The challenge for Obama is to negotiate conflicting regional agendas and to keep leaders' minds on the immediate task - and not muddy the effort to eliminate IS with local infighting.

Riyadh is a classic example in this regard. It is determined to see off Syria's beleaguered dictator, Bashar al-Assad, because of the damage Assad's demise would inflict on Syria's ally, Iran.

But IS (also called ISIL) is one of the strongest rebel forces fighting in Syria and it can be argued that any containment or defeat of IS by the Obama coalition, relieves the pressure on Assad.

Analysts argue that the leaders of the so-called moderate Sunni states are now fixated on the threat posed to their regimes by IS. But there is no clarity on what they might do militarily as part of a coalition to squeeze IS - thereby helping genuinely to head off the perception that this is another Western war against Muslims.

There is also little clarity on how the moderate Sunni states would defend themselves, instead of relying on others to defend them.

When Obama was asked about the role of Iran, in a recent interview with The New York Times, he responded: "I think what the Iranians have done is to finally realise that a maximalist position by the Shia in Iraq is, over the long term, going to fail. And that's, by the way, a broader lesson for every country [in the region]: you want 100 per cent, and the notion that the winner really does take all, all the spoils.

"Sooner or later that government's going to break down."

Therein, Obama put his finger on a tactical flaw in trying to work with the region's leaders - they all have their own agendas and they all want 100 per cent.

He needs them, but he can't rely on any of them.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/claims-...mas-speech-20140912-10fvvb.html#ixzz3D6yKmMeq
 
Top