Incidentally, it was your thread about SPC Tillman being deliberately murdered for his political views that prompted me to register here. You failed to argue your case then, and you fail now. Occam's razor owns you. Accept it and move on.
I responded to the substance of your post - such as it was. I shouldn't have, of course, because it was way off topic, but we all have our moments of weakness. Sorry about that; my informal quota allows you five posts now without a response to your idea of "substance" - have a good time.count said:
Do you think that it is certain - beyond a reasonable doubt - that his political beliefs had nothing to do with either his killing or the aftermath reactions of military authority ?echo said:
And from where does such certainty arise ?
Because one of the factors provoking and maintaining the less reasonable among the conspiracy theories is the certainty (and scorn) expressed in their complete dismissal by people who don't seem to have much basis for that - no arguments, no particular evidence, etc - and the lack of visible consideration for the conspiracy view even in fairly reasonable circumstances.
And this characteristic of the unreasonable is well known, so that the maintenance of such reactions in the case of, say, the WTC towers, begins to resemble a conspiracy of its own. The unreasonable conspiracy theories around 9/11 have proven very useful in heading off the reasonable ones, no?
Last edited:
Absolutely.
Years of professional experience in identical circumstances, a great deal of related education, and a thorough parsing of the official investigations into the incident. All three of which Ganymede et al. universally lack.iceaura said:
OK, but that's not an argument or evidence. You do make occasional mistakes in similar areas of politically charged discussion, in which you have similar experience and competence as far as we know, so simple assertion not settling the matter is not strange.echo said:
The question is whether you have honestly considered all the possibilities of the influence of Tillman's apparently well-known views on the event and its handling.
The circumstance is that the appearance so far is that you have not - that you have never given any of the various possibilities of influence much credit ("fragged for his political views" as a summary of the possibilities does not inspire confidence).
And the relevance here is that something of the same appearance seems to have been adopted as if deliberately by the official handlers of 9/11. They are not settling things that could be (or, could have been) fairly easily settled.
That wasn't me.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1489960&postcount=84Ganymede said:
I've entertained everything offered and found it all to be poorly informed conjecture founded on ignorance of evidence, procedure, circumstance, and military culture itself. You can read it too, if you want, by revisiting that thread in its inane entireity. If you have any other questions, I can try to entertain them here since this thread has grown into a conspiracy megathread.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Well I'm glad that I inspired you. However, your anger is grossly misplaced. I wasn't the one who lied directly to the parents of Pat Tillman, I wasn't one who burned his uniform and his personal notebook(which is against the standard protocol), I wasn't the one who shot him in the head even though he was waiving his hands signaling to his so called comrades to cease fire. I wasn't the one who intentionally lied to the public about his death, even though they knew for a fact he was killed by one of his own men. So I think it would be more patriotic of you to join Pat Tillmans family who's demanding a new investigation, because they want someone held accountable. Taking the fight to Ganymede isn't going to bring Justice to the Tillman family.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547321/posts
Believe it or not, my life is enriching enough to not require me to rage against people over the internet in pursuit of self-actualization. The back-and-forth intellectual jousting we do here provides me with idle amusement in my downtime, and little else.Ganymede said:
In any case, all you've managed to effectively argue is that the circumstances of his death were initially covered up, which is something that hasn't ever been contested (to my knowledge) and is patently clear to anyone that has bothered to follow his case. However, in order to take that farther and argue that he was murdered for his political views, you need to ignore a great many facts that are either documented as procedure or corroborated by multiple individuals involved in the incident. I addressed those already, in the other thread, and don't feel like doing so again would be particularly productive.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
No, Ice.
What you've done is slither back into your hole after saying something ridiculous, parsing it and then trying to redefine it and claim that I'm not capable of understanding the nuances of your plain English. This is SOP for you and whenever your own obfuscations begin even to confuse you. That is, you start arguing about arguing and refuse to address people who quote your own statements back to you. Then you retreat to a self-perceived higher plane of understanding.
So how's the weather up there?
Just trying to be civil, give you an out.count said:
There remains a grey area, in between deliberate murder and random misfortune, AFAIK not well considered - at least in public - by those with the necessary familiarity.echo said:
And something like it is also present in the WTC muddle - maybe terms for the range of it might be "conspiracy of negligence" on the high side, and "biased inattention" on the low.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Keep slithering, buddy, you're almost there.