persnipoles

persnipoles

91p

980 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

2 hours ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Obama Informs Congress... · 0 replies · +1 points

Curious if "Secretary of Stare" was an intentional misspelling...haven't heard such a thing yet, but the current one does look like corpse...

My God, worth what?
Right question. There's a 'famous' line from a Charles Forte book (semi-new to me, maybe not to you)...once apparently misquoted as 'I think we're farmed,' it's on the web as 'I think we're property' e.g., at http://www.resologist.net/damn12.htm . It was part of the answer to the recurring theme of why hypothetical (perhaps slipping towards articles-of-faith) beings don't make an effort to come talk to humans --the premise being, as Forte identified, that we'd be inherently more interesting to them than, say, our livestock are to us... ...If television could serve hay, would you ever speak to your meat? Name the meat-units? Phone them and tell them you care? This also explains Albright's perspective. Yea, e'en though she spoke out loud, it's not really fair to say she communicated with us.

7 hours ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Obama Informs Congress... · 0 replies · +5 points

If Saddam Hussein were still running Iraq, you couldn't run large scale terrorism there. And he'd still manage that with a much lower incarceration rate than the USg's drug rackets entail. Iraqis would largely be left alone.

7 hours ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Obama Informs Congress... · 3 replies · +3 points

Catching William Bennett and Bing West on and off / in and out of where the radio's on. I'm hearing from Bing West a certain charlatan-voice pattern that I remember from e.g. Ludwig Halbig (I'd suggest there are charlatan training centers somewhere...). Also picking up some old themes. From memory:

In response to a caller asking if he should be telling his grandkids they'll pretty much be fighting in Iraq forever: ~they don't have to ... less than one percent do... you don't wanna serve your country that's fine, plenty do.~
Probably prior to that: ~every single one of my marines would be saying "yeah let me over there."~

Of course, about one year ago, active military were sneaking their faceless pics out telling the world they really don't want to fight for AQ in Syria. That was basically the strongest message they could get behind in a unified way (the less obvious contradictions surrounding ISIS would be dividing them now). I identified with that from my own experience: it's extremely hard to tell a war sl-t that you don't/didn't especially want or approve of the war after low-lifes spend months trying to create that impression. As property, you're also a propaganda prop. They don't just dress you funny, they turn you into their astroturf. If only you could get some word out...

From at least three wars, pattern I see runs: make someone evil, make a ~'defining event', cut off sympathy for the 'collaterals' everybody half-understands will be maimed or killed in the process of burning their witch... But the key is: there's then a remainder --a holy people-- that salesmen need to-be-seen-with. The ones that everyone agrees to wax 'concerned' about--that it'd be hard to sell them on being unconcerned about (at least at the beginning). Among those are 'troops:' a salesman needs to be seen-with-them, so to speak, just like the old politicians-kissing-babies bit. Ergo, "support our troops," and "every single one of them is eager to go burn your witches. Just that the bleeding hearts won't let 'em." Both basically the same lie generally told prior to screwing 'troops' with another 'national' misadventure.

3 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Feds Not Aware of Any ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Would've been awfully hard to pin terrorist attacks on dem Moozlms and/or others who make incursions into other hemispheres superficially plausible if, say, there was a zero tolerance for foreign presence policy...

3 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Obama: We Don't Have a... · 0 replies · +1 points

As I read you it occurs to me they also aren't ~'interested' in ISIS' motives (Kerry's "inexplicable, nihilistic, valueless evil" bit tells me so (it's also bound to attract in a similar way that the War on Drugs attracts to marijuana; "please condemn my product"))...just like they won't be advertising their own. New doctrine? Old doctrine? Nobody has popularly understood reasons for what they do.

3 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - UN May Be Drawn Into G... · 0 replies · +3 points

Coincidentally, Israel just bombed UN buildings in Gaza. Well, thank God it's dem moozlms now.

4 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Obama: We Don't Have a... · 1 reply · +7 points

'we tortured some folks'
it will 'cost some money'
'an unbelievably small war'
~...unless there is explicit intelligence that proves his innocence posthumously. ...~


I think I've seen this before...

4 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Latest Slain American ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Hoover Boyz just spent the years between the Kurt Haskell/Umar Abdulmatallab and the Boston bombing entrapping dozens with their informants' own absurd and contrived plots. They began publicly pointing to their own involvement after Haskell's exposure of someone's involvement, and there was a peaking backlash against their breaking-up-their-own-plots right about the time of the Boston bombing.
So, e.g., if someone decided to 'let one through' (or instigate one to completion) the latter event served at least one obvious purpose--get the discussion back on 'Islamic terrorism' and off of the stings.

But in the case of the stings, the Hoover Boyz were revealing how they motivated their patsy--how they e.g. chatted their marks up for a year, heard him say he'll have to ask his mom first, then moved in for the kill. One important theme was Occupied Palestine /Occupied Iraq. But gov't revealing itself as often providing the theme, and what the themes were, was a net PR negative for GWoT and Israel. This had to change.

Our hypothetical ISIS recruiters have no such 'constraint' to explain themselves to the public or even at trial. They could be FBI, with an unappreciated 'transparency' constraint removed, or they could be anybody free to move among Muslims/sympathizers. The PR-positive gos to GWoT/Israel, but they may be operating through previous informants/infiltrators/handlers--i.e., old infrastructure.

5 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - Syrian Rebels Seize Is... · 0 replies · +2 points

hard to see how having al-Qaeda on their border is a preferred situation.
Ask yourself "what's in a name?" It isn't much to do with the thing in itself.

6 days ago @ News From Antiwar.com - US Rules Out Coordinat... · 0 replies · +4 points

Seem to remember Richard Perle saying of Afghanistan ~we wish we could ally with Mother Theresa, but we got who we got.

But what they do have with Assad is a devil-by-policy--the usual object-type that they're obligated by Jewish lobbying to repudiate.