my point was that i was juggling these questions a long time ago… been trying to move us along a bit.

and yes, AVI, i do read and listen to points.

ask occam, walla, waltj, etc..

cant please everyone though..

It is my contention that, even before and certainly since 9/11, we have been attacked on U.S. soil by many more Muslim Jihadis–from overseas and home-grown—than we are aware of, and that this wave of attacks–which seem to be growing in number and frequency–is being covered up as a matter of government and MSM policy

possibility… that seems to be the point of why AQ does multiple strikes at the same time. gets around the problem of burying news and details which dont go national.

there is also the issue of idiots retaliating against people who have nothing to do with this. and thats pretty much 99.999% of most people they would attack or cause problems for.

in other words, just as they played with other terms and things to change what we see into something else

its a form of stretching definitions and meaning till they break…

what makes a real terrorist act?
the preparing?
the collecting junk for the act?
the moving into position?
the carrying of the weaponry?

no… you can play a game with words and intents and until he actually pulls the trigger, its not a terrorist act..

its just a man with a lot of stuff tha a terrorist might also have, but who has yet to do anything.

technically that still makes him a man with a lot of stuff a terrorist might also have… but technically innocent till we PROVE it.

so in truth, the way they are persuing this, one cant charge a person with terrorism until they finish the act, and even then, one has to prove it was a terrorist act, and not just a nasty bad action by a non terrorist that seems to appear the same.

but if your a crypto marxist, and a crypto islamic jihadi, then this all makes sense to make this argument.

i mean, really, can you just stand up and say what your for? no. thats the wrong side of the argumetn for public consumption.

so you try any excuise till you find one that works, and then keep plinking that.

why? because under socialism reality is artificially augmented so as to control people. we USED to call them lies, but lies in the servicve of utopia are not lies, they are just cause, just as stealing becomes just cause, murder, assasination (guess who committed suicide), and really anything under the sun or not…

My Bay area Democrat cousin told me to stop believing everything I read…..

people like hux who said it was not reasonable to think that way, or in those terms agbout the subject. they said that that was the past, has no relevence. when it had relevence he was a differnt person. when it was his friends, he could be different, you never know, be reasonable. in every case, the extremist is proteced in his extreme acts!!! why? the resonable stop action

when hitler grabbed his first country, the reasonable said, let him have it, no sense fighting after the fact, he wont take more. and when he did, they kept at it each stage of the way.

the game for them is to keep moving the goal they put down… so what happens is if they are right, its all good. and if they are wrong, they play a game of inching on the subject so eventually when it does stop, they seem like they were right all along

when in truth they were wrong all along and the only reason you think they are right is that after 100 wrong guesses the right one they finally hit is the one they settle on and say they knew it all along. its a social game… hard to see unless you stake as tep back and remember what they said each time! which is why i see them, if i can remember a tiny detail about a history few know and recite it from one glance 20 years ago, i can easily keep up with such BS games!!!!!!

they serve a positive role in society…they keep a cap on nutty behavior during good times.. that is, when things are pretty good, they keep the unreasonable from making unreasonable conclusions and committing unreasonable acts to match that. but they are not developed for living in a world that is not always good. like a domesticated animal, you take them out of the home, and they keep applying the same method.. they find out the hard way and usually its so hard that they dont become feral they become dead.

those of us who have had the displeasure of the benifit of not always living in such a world. have a different set of things. they know that when situations change, what worked in the other realm is completey useless and negated in the real world.

you see it all the time with some dip who gets killed trying to reason with a sadist who is robbing them. you see it when a person climbs over a fence to hug a polar bear. you see it in apocolyptic movies as the reasonable person goes out to strike a deal with a superior force willing to use it…

as the mobster said, “i tink dey is not in a position to make such demands.”

so basically, our habits and things become our enemy. our acclimatized to meritocracy meant that we didnt hold up a skeptical eye as we should (and were warned to do). we become domesticaed and lazy, they take advantage of the ignorance that taht bringts, and they are not scared as that ignorance defends itself. and since its in greater numbers, the ignorance uses force and other means to win (like taking the time to count the letters in my posts rather than real points)…. so the ignorant reasonable use our honest hesitancy to be wrong, to confuse and create an endless waiting game.

lenin discovered this when the people did not rise up, they analysed it.. and it became part of their political science of tools of understanding masses. it became something they could bank on. as the human nature of that is stronger than the human nature to defer to someone that knows more, and be one off.

🙂