SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
3hr ago
Ok, point to one example. Giving someone else the last word is not shirking a debate, the notion I disappear for weeks to avoid an argument is a false accusation. But feel free to point to a single instance where I've engaged in the behavior you're accusing me of, but you won't.
SecureSignals
3hr ago
Can you cite an example of when I've ghosted a debate?
"Ghosting a debate" doesn't mean I neglect to reply to every single comment, or when I decide to give my opponent the last word. Feel free to cite one example when you think I've done what you've described, but you won't.
SecureSignals
3hr ago
It's absolutely not true, I would challenge him or you to cite anything I've written that matches that characterization. He shirked when I asked him to, and you're going to shirk as well. Not surprising that you put on mod hat to endorse a comment that breaks the rules and mischaracterizes my arguments.
SecureSignals
6hr ago
Crushedoranges, if you disagree with anything I have written anywhere you can hit the "reply" button and I will debate you. But you have shown up here to complain about me talking about Jews and not to debate.
Challenge rejected, my posts are appropriate for a Culture War forum, and I'm not obsessed with talking about them so much as the rest of the world is obsessed with not talking about them to the degree that ought be appropriate in any serious analysis of Culture War.
SecureSignals
9hr ago
I did it once in a comment reply as an obvious protest, my defense is that it is not something have I done to generate "normal" posts at all even a single time. That is just not true.
It's a funny bait and switch. They check off the "diversity" box in the Prologue and pay it no mind whatsoever in the entire story itself. The story is about a white family and it's actually interesting.
SecureSignals
14hr ago
No, that was just one time I made an obviously generated comment reply (not a top-level post) to make a mockery of the dumb rule that was created to target me. It was an obvious protest and not something I have seriously done in any capacity.
SecureSignals
14hr ago
With that said, I'm the safest here from that accusation because no LLM would assist writing my posts or helping my arguments haha.
SecureSignals
14hr ago
I'll throw in my two cents and say that prompting things like "summarize the sequence of costs tariffs impose" is fine because it can probably provide a clearer summary, and in less time, than you. Your perspective + predictions are presumably your own and not just pasting LLM opinion on the state of things.
Ultimately I learned a lot from the post relative to the time reading it, that's what I care about most.
Just to add to that list, I was fairly excited for IT: Welcome to Derry because the IT TV special is one of my favorite horror movies, but Welcome to Derry is the most abysmal woke slop you could imagine. The theme of the show is that racism is scarier than Pennywise. We know this is the theme because the Rabbi told his son in the first episode- reality is scarier than fantasy and Jews know better than anyone the horror of reality, with the reality anecdote used by the father to demonstrate "reality as scarier than fantasy" to his son ironically being the lie that Jews were turned into lampshades at Buchenwald- pretty ironic the writers chose a fantasy and huge lie to drive home the theme of reality being scarier than fantasy. Then that night his son gets attacked by Pennywise in the form of a human-skin lampshade.
That just set the stage though- at least half the cast is black, and of course they are all the noble, intelligent, upstanding characters while all the white characters are evil, bumbling, and dysfunctional. The most unforgiveable part is that most of the drama is dedicated to rehashing "Black experience in American South" but just Copy + Pasting it to Derry Maine with all the memes, featuring a black woman with a heavy southern accent as the hero fighting Racism in Derry with absolutely no new angle or artistic interpretation.
What to make of it? Woke isn't dead because Hollywood changed its mind, it's dead because the spell was broken among a critical mass of the laity. So either Hollywood and gaming will change, or they won't change and there will just be this persistent conflict that ruins everything. I read the Reddit reviews of different episodes to get a feeling for how far off my take on the show is from the average Redditor, and it's miles away. Obviously there's a selection bias but the median redditor still eats this slop up- "omg I loved the scene where the Cuban kid played drums in the happy Black jazz club, it really set the stage for next episode when the white people come and kill them all."
Edit: Expedition 33 was not woke at all though. The cast featured a diverse crew, and then 99% of the diversity was killed off at the very beginning of the first act, and virtually the entire cast is white and the story centers on familial relations within an unambiguously ethnically French family, with sympathetic interpretations of each character and there is just no wokeness at all. And people loved it.
Central to Scrooge's hatred of Christmas is being stuck in school with his books while his peers are out celebrating Christmas. This was a common-enough Jewish experience that Hannukah was elevated to its current status to precisely solve this problem for Jewish children. Mr. Fezziwig's ball represents Scrooge being pulled into the tradition as a "Christmas convert" just like the Grinch. They are both isolated figures, outsiders, resentful of the Holiday, but then they are won over. Ebeneezer is a Hebrew name, while it wasn't that uncommon for Christians, his business partner Jacob Marley had a fully Jewish name. Fagin is Jewish in Dicken's Oliver Twist although Dickens edited out direct reference to Fagin as a Jew.
The point isn't "Scrooge was Jewish" it's that these stories were created to represent cultural "victory of the Christmas Spirit" over the "anti-Christmas spirit." It's a mode of propagating culture, to craft fictional characters that resist it (and are inspired by prevailing stereotypes of non-Christians) but then they end up converting in the end. It moralizes Christmas and demoralizes outsiders who would oppose it, because if they do they are a Scrooge or a Grinch- someone who has not accepted a conversion necessary for their very soul.
Superman is not literally a Jew, he's a Kryptonian, but what the character represents is a different question entirely.
Jews are the ones correctly interpreting these things in both cases. The Harry Potter goblins were a representation of Jews written by a Gentile. Superman is a representation and self-conception of a Jew written by Jews.
The Grinch and Scrooge are metaphors for Jews written by Christians telling a story of their Conversion to Christianity through Christmas.
Fictional characters you identify with say a lot about you, and they also say a lot about how you perceive your outgroup. The "Dumb Blonde" stereotype has no basis in reality, it's a Hollywood trope written from an adversarial perspective. The "Jock vs Nerd" trope, in which the socially maladjusted Nerd always wins, is telling a similar story.
Jews have a fine-tuned sensitivity, and mastery, over writing and interpreting these characters. They are very good at using them to criticize their outgroup, and they are very good at detecting when fictional characters are being used to criticize them (and most of the time they are not being paranoid they are correct). Whites are not very good at detecting when a fictional character was written in order to criticize themselves from an adversarial perspective. Jews are very good at detecting that.
Bari Weiss was near center of a huge media controversy at Columbia, in which a group of Jewish students organized under "The David Project" and demanded the firing of a Palestinian Professor Joseph Massad. Bari Weiss and Bronze Age Pervert (yes that BAP) were peers and part of the David Project group writing articles to the Columbia Spectator calling for Massad to be fired and reforming the Middle East Studied department against the Palestinian perspective.
After Columbia, Weiss went to Israel where she did an internship under Yoram Hazony at the Shalem Center, a right-wing Zionist think tank in Jerusalem, and she worked for Haaretz and The Jewish Daily Forward. She then wrote for the Wall Street Journal and under Bret Stephens, who is now the inaugural editor-in-chief of SAPIR: A Journal of Jewish Conversations.
When Bret Stephens left for the NYT he took Weiss with him. Then Weiss resigns from NYT in 2020 to start The Free Press, which only in October of this year was acquired by Paramount Sykdance, owned by the Ellison family, for $150 million, and she was named editor-in-chief of CBS News.
The Ellison family has extremely close connections with Israel and Netanyahu personally, as friends and financiers and business partners.
This brings us to the question of how did Weiss become the editor-in-chief of CBS News? Did she win the meritocratic contest for this position owing to her outstanding Jewish verbal IQ? Or is her promotion to this position of power an example of Jews colluding to acquire power over and steer the national narrative in favor of their own interests?
At the risk of consensus-building, from the perspective of anyone aligned with Fuentes on the JQ it is so obviously the latter. And I am very curious what somebody, like you, who opposes Fuente's anti-semitism would say about this? Either you insist Weiss's career was propelled by her merit and IQ, or you acknowledge that her most important credential that earned her station was being a Jew connected to other Jews who was perceived as the best fit for pivoting the network to steer the national narrative in favor of Jews. So it's "meritocratic" in the sense that she was judged to be the best person for this job, "the job" being steer the national narrative in the interest of Jews.
If you insist the former, she has control over CBS news because of her IQ, you are just living in a different world from the "anti-semites" and your critique of their perspective will fall on deaf ears because, from their perspective, you are ignoring plain reality. The idea that Weiss has editorial control over CBS news because of her merit, I don't see how anyone could believe that. But if you admit that the elevation of Bari Weiss is an example of Jews engaging in the behavior that "anti-Semites" accuse them of, then you have a harder task of conceding some ground, which never happens in any mainstream criticism of Nick's Anti-semitism but still explaining why he's wrong.
Saying "Bari Weiss being promoted to this position of power is an example of Jews colluding to steer the national narrative in favor of Jewish interests" will get you called an Anti-Semite, it will get you fired if you say it out loud, but it's also true. That's the strength of Nick's appeal, it's not because of the economy or housing market or dating market. It's because we all see this thing that is happening with Ellison, CBS, Bari Weiss, and our interpretations of what is happening are true. That is the strength of the appeal.
The Weiss question is interesting because, in my view, it's an area where even those who criticize Fuente's anti-semitism should concede some ground and admit there's some truth there. But will they? I don't think so, and giving Nick that sort of monopoly over true and important interpretations of political and cultural developments is what is empowering him most of all.
Funny anecdote reported by WSJ:
According to executives familiar with the plans, foreign correspondent Chris Livesay was among the staffers who were going to be let go as part of companywide layoffs in the works before Weiss's arrival.
In an email to Weiss, he spoke of affinity for Israel and suggested he was being "bullied" and isolated for his views, according to a person familiar with the matter. Weiss weighed in on the layoffs and spared Livesay, people familiar with the move said.
Other CBS News correspondents say that Livesay wasn't bullied for having pro-Israel views.
I wonder why Nick is so popular when he is the only prominent media figure directly naming the elephant in the room! Acknowledging this stuff isn't just being edgy, or being hateful, it is fundamentally required for understanding ongoing political and cultural conflict in the US.
When Piers asked Fuentes what he liked about America, one of Nick's answers was that he liked that America was a pan-European experiment in which a European empire was built that overcame the petty nationalisms from the European continent. It's one thing I like about it too. What do you think Teddy Roosevelt would say about demographic change in the United States?
One of Roosevelt's closest allies in the conservationist movement was Madison Grant, one of the key political leaders behind the extremely restrictionist Immigration Act of 1942. Roosevelt gave a positive view of Grant's The Passing of the Great Race and implored women to have white babies to avert "race suicide" in a speech to the National Congress of Mothers in 1905. Today Roosevelt is regarded as a racist and white supremacist.
The racialist right has a far greater claim as successors to Roosevelt's view on race and including the quote you put there, from the perspective of America as a pan-European experiment and imperial project. That was Roosevelt's view, and he certainly viewed the world in terms of race.
The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American
I feel like this is bait, because there are quite a few Americans who this denunciation would apply to today. And it's not Nick Fuentes, who is the one causing scandal by essentially restating these words today.
Piers' and the general Conservative, boomer, narrow loyalty to certain propositions, legal documents, and historical institutions is a thinly veiled expression of loyalty to socially dominant Memes- in particular Hitler and the Holocaust. "I don't care about race I care about the Constitution" is not misguided loyalty to Thenetics it's compliance with socially dominant memetics which demand that this ambivalence towards genetic replacement compose the right-wing side of the cultural dialectic. It makes racially-oriented thinking taboo.
Amazingly, Piers Morgan strongly and emotionally denied that his proud ambivalence towards the erasure of his own people is the product of this Hitler/Holocaust-centric memetic structure... and then a few minutes later Morgan literally calls an old Jew into the show to lecture Nick with a sob story about family killed by Stalin and Hitler! This is similar to my dispute with @2rafa, who constantly cites other factors as formulating the center of this memetic structure while the Priestly caste of that memetic structure incessantly and without fail invoke Hitler and the Holocaust to justify their moral advocacy for ambivalence towards genetic replacement and racial thinking. At what point do you just believe them when they cite these symbols as inspiration for the center of their moral perspective toward these extremely import issues facing the United States and Europe?
Hitler and the Holocaust is the secular religion that Nick challenges with his shock and humor (and he is a Denier too, although he wisely avoids engaging in Revisionism directly). The way you contest a religion is by subverting and destroying its idols.
Genes tell the story of bodies. Memes tell the story of ideas.
Genes are downstream from memes. Think about how the tokens constituting an oral tradition and written to paper literally direct the ethnogenesis of the Jewish people. The myths created the people, so it is in Europe and the United States today. The dominant mythos is required to understand the direction of the people.
This crucial insight of the interaction between the two is embedded even in the Book of Genesis, in which Jacob is promised speckled sheep (mixed black/white sheep) as wages for guarding Laban's flock. Jacob then does something odd. He takes fresh branches (from poplar, almond, and plane trees), peels stripes into them so the wood looks streaked and speckled, and sets these peeled sticks in front of the animals at the watering troughs when they’re mating.
He only does this with the stronger animals, not the weak ones.
Genesis says that as a result, the animals that mated in front of the striped bark bore sheep that were streaked or speckled. Jacob claimed those as his wages. The weaker animals (who weren’t given the rods) mostly stayed Laban’s. Jacob uses visual media, a symbolic technique (the rods at the troughs) to direct the breeding of the sheep and he wins the flock. In the bible, flocks of sheep are a motif representing people.
Of course all cultures share the feature of using memes to direct the genetic evolution of the flock, while Genesis is unique in demonstrating consciousness of the functional relationship between symbols and ethnogenesis. Piers is a sheep. His hangups over Hitler, the Holocaust, prosecuting Nick for all the -ists and the -isms is directed by the symbols and memes of his generation.
That's the impetus for blaspheming this secular religion. It's not just about being edgy, it's about tearing down the symbols that are directing the behavior of the flock in a suicidal direction. Piers is a product of that memetic structure, and so is his apparent, shallow loyalty to what you cell Thenetics.
The policy is not aimed at convincing the existing European power apparatus but on fostering opposition parties. If migration were so great for Europe, why is all the censorship and political suppression of the opposition even necessary? Why is opposition growing in Europe if it has all these great benefits? Europe being replaced by foreigners is not in Europe's interests or the security interests of the United States. I do not care if the average European is in denial of the fact, it has to be overcome. The EU Regulatory framework is by far the greater barrier to economic growth than not having enough Arabs and Africans, who have not ushered in economic prosperity.
Also, you are not European, you are Indian, so the "you need us" perspective should be inverted- you are the one who needs us, not the other way around.
SecureSignals
15d ago
The Elevation of Fringe Theories to Official US Foreign Policy
Rewind 10 years, and the only ones expressing dire concern over racial demographics in the US and Europe were very fringe, low-status, rag-tag group of political radicals called the "Alt Right". At the time it seemed scandalous that anyone would have much concern over European civilization becoming majority non-White, at best it was just crazy-talk but more commonly it was denounced as an indictment on someone's character for advocating for any sort of political or cultural initiative to stop or reverse this development. Although that is still the median interpretation, since the 2020 Great Awokening there's been a rapid expansion and a mainstreaming of these political views- the greatest indication of that yet is the release of the official 2025 National Security Strategy that directly identifies these concerns, as well as actually stopping and reversing them, a matter of US foreign policy. My emphasis:
C. Promoting European Greatness
American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper.
Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness.
But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
...
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.
Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.
America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent— and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.
The long-standing political strategy of "Democratic" Europe has been to form whatever coalition of center-left/right parties is necessary to prevent far right parties who oppose this from attaining power, while at the same time engaging in strong censorship and political suppression of right-wing parties- an artifact of the psychological warfare against Europe which we called Denazification. This is behavior is identified as a national security threat in this document, which advocates the United States "Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."
The devil is in the details of implementation, but this document represents the codification of fringe Alt-Right views from 10 years ago. It's no longer a "conspiracy theory" or "White Supremacy" to identify the political forces actively orchestrating the demographic replacement of European nations, it's directly identified as a foreign policy issue of the United States, which is a major step forward, with mainstream publications now openly acknowledging the issue without the usual trappings of denouncing racism or White Supremacy:
President Donald Trump echoed similar warnings during a visit to the United Kingdom last year, saying mass immigration would "destroy Europe" and that the continent was "not going to survive" unless governments dramatically change course.
The White House defended the warning, saying Europe is already suffering the consequences of mass immigration.
"The devastating impacts of unchecked migration and those migrants’ inability to assimilate are not just a concern for President Trump but for Europeans themselves, who have increasingly noted immigration as one of their top concerns," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "These open border policies have led to widespread examples of violence, spikes in crime, and more, with detrimental impacts on the fiscal sustainability of social safety net programs."
Some observers have noted the relative deemphasis on preparing for conflict with China and pivoting towards Western-hemispheric control, a revitalizing of the Monroe Doctrine. Although I am a critic of Trump, I have to say I am supportive of this national security strategy- although implementation is ultimately what matters and in all likelihood a Democrat administration would strike much of this. But it's a major step forward in acknowledging an existential crisis that until very recently was completely taboo.
SecureSignals
16d ago
I was thinking about buying some shares of Paramount at that price but the conditions:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if it is announced that Warner Bros. Discovery will be, has been, or is being acquired by or merged with the listed entity by 11:59 PM ET on May 31, 2026. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
Yes a hostile takeover is going to take longer than that. If it were by May 2027 Paramount would be trading much higher. Market makes sense with these conditions where it resolves with the "expected" company.
An official announcement will qualify for a "Yes" resolution, regardless of whether the merger or acquisition is ultimately completed.
SecureSignals
16d ago
I'm seeing a lot of indications though Paramount is going to move for a hostile takeover. Trump is friendly to Ellisons and hostile to Netflix. I would put it at least 33% chance Paramount does hostile takeover instead of Netflix.
SecureSignals
19d ago
MAGAs must make up their minds about whom they dislike first.
Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?
This is just a non sequitur. We can walk and chew gum. Historically demographic replacement has been given even too much intention relative to elite takeover. Demographic replacement has already happened, not even in majority but near-totality, in elite Ivy institutions where the non-Jewish White population of the student body has been completely decimated even relative to their diminishing representation in the country. That doesn't mean we can't care about all of those things and pursue policy and advocacy to mitigate all of those at the same time.
The biggest issue with this policy is that these countries simply do not constitute the large majority of the foreign migration intake so it's symbolic, which is something. But it's not sufficient.
He used religious arguments to persuade Fuentes' followers that idpol is a dangerous idea
Yes, this has been the Conservative playbook for decades: say "ipdol is a dangerous idea" while White men are under the yoke of all other groups that defect from that ethos. Carlson didn't even engage Fuentes' response that Jews do not cooperate with that ethos, they say "idpol is a dangerous idea" for whites while they maintain intense identification with their heritage and organize collectively and internationally on the basis of their ethnic identity. Every Fuentes fan has heard "idpol is a dangerous idea" before, and all of them most likely believed it at some point. And then we see irrefutable proof of the consequences of Whites naively cooperating with that ethos while every single other group, Jews in particular, defect and use cultural and political power against us and in favor of themselves.
There's no honor in "gracefully losing" your country by clinging to a fundamentally broken and hostile demand to cooperate in a moral strategy that other groups have no intention whatsoever of following. If they demand you cooperate while they defect, they are just being adversarial against you and you aren't a Moral Person for accepting that.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
If Chuck Schumer's resolution passes it would be the first time in US Senate history of such a condemnation of a private citizen for political views.
Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
The foremost appeal is the force of truth. If you watch Nick's monologue, his criticisms are true. They are rational arguments, and they are anti-fragile in the sense the backlash they provoke strengthens their currency. It's not just due to the housing market, job market, anti-white Culture. It's due to the very real cultural criticism of Jews that Nick gives which nobody else has been willing to say. Jews themselves incessantly criticize White culture and identity through all mediums and institutions they control. And then they become apoplectic when a White man fires back with truthful criticism of Jewish identity and culture.
One thing I have never seen from any of the Jews weighing in on the Tuckercaust is an acknowledgement of the arguments Fuentes is making. They grasp for some other explanation for Fuentes' popularity, but they never restate the arguments Nick makes in that monologue for example and engage them. They simply pathologize the individuals who are being influenced by these arguments. It's why Shapiro would never debate Fuentes. If Fuentes laid out his argument as clearly as he does in this monologue, what would Shapiro even say?
The only path forward would be for Jews to acknowledge the truth of Fuentes' arguments and make genuine efforts to reconcile. They are incapable of that, which is why cancellation and pathologizing the "anti-semites" is their only reaction to this Cultural Criticism going mainstream and it's not going to work.
We've collectively memory-holed the anthrax attack on the US in the days after 9/11, which at the the time was a major reason for the WMD claim:
The 2001 Anthrax Attacks were a critical factor in the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) claims that sparked the Iraq War. Despite its significance, little systematic work has been done regarding the topic. Existing studies primarily focus on the role of the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence failures as the primary explanations for the origins of the Iraq War. These explanations are limited, as they rely on hindsight biases. This thesis contends that anthrax was the catalyst for WMD claims that sparked the Iraq War. The 2001 Anthrax Attacks reinforced the belief that Iraq harbored WMDs and posed a threat to the U.S. These attacks have often been overshadowed by the 9/11 tragedy and the inability to find WMDs in Iraq. This thesis finds that the Bush Administration viewed these attacks as a significant threat to the U.S. They seized the opportunity that the 2001 Anthrax Attacks presented to formulate WMD allegations and present Iraq as an imminent threat when a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq couldn't be established.
So why were the anthrax attacks tied to Iraq? There were intelligence reports that a 9/11 hijacker was supplied with anthrax by Al-Qaeda at a meeting at the Iraqi consulate in Prague. Never happened, he was never even in Prague at this time. Yet Dick Cheney repeated the allegation as the nation prepared for war with Iraq:
It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in (the Czech Republic) last April, several months before the attack.
Ostensibly the source for this lie was Czech intelligence. But LATimes reported something different back in October 2001:
Atta, an Egyptian, is suspected of flying one of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Iraq has vehemently denied any connection to the attacks and has said that Atta and Ani never met....
“This meeting did not take place,” Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz told The Times in Baghdad last week. “It is a lie. We checked with him: ‘Did you ever meet somebody called Atta?’ ” ...
Israeli intelligence officials also reportedly have been pushing the possibility of an Iraqi connection to the terrorist attacks. It could be in Israel’s security interests to see the U.S. take a more aggressive stance against Iraq.
Germany’s mass-circulation Bild newspaper Thursday quoted unidentified Israeli intelligence sources as saying Atta received anthrax spores from Iraqi agents in Prague.
But a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition that he not be further identified, said Friday that Washington has found no evidence indicating that Iraq had provided anthrax to Atta or that Iraq is involved in the bioterrorism attacks.
This is October 27th 2001, less than 2 months after 9/11. Lies about Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection less than two months after the attack.
Yes, the WMDs were lies manufactured by people with an interest in having the US overthrow Saddam. There is no other reason for a fabrication like this. They lied about WMDs they were not mistaken. Or at least, the key provocateurs lied and traitors like Dick Cheney were just duped. But that's not being "mistaken" that's being lied to at best or at worst knowingly perpetuating the lie as a false pretext for war.
By the way, the consensus is now that the origin of the Anthrax spores was not Iraq, it was from a specific batch of the "Ames" strain that originated from a U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But in October 2001 we have these intelligence reports claiming it was supplied by Iraq. Really makes you think...
So crushedoranges accuses me of not being here to debate. I say, ok, point to anything I've posted you disagree with and we can debate. He refuses and says "debate is pointless."
Then you come in here and say I disappear for weeks at a time in order to avoid debate, and I say, ok, point to a single time you feel I've done that. You refuse and say "you're fooling no one."
The only ones making unfalsifiable claims are you and @crushedoranges. Because when I ask you to substantiate your accusations you refuse to do so.
More options
Context Copy link