View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

What's on the table?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Arouet » 10 Oct 2012, 02:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:Ninja, not sure you're reading that wiki quote correctly. It says to deliver a false-statement. A "lie by ommission" is not a statement.

(not that I don't think people in the government have never lied, just saying the lie by ommission doesn't fit the bill)

You are right. A lie by omission is NOT a statement. But it's still a "lie" as per the quoted Wikipedia definition.

I'm not questioning if the US government has lied or ever lied. I'm questioning if Misha's choice of words are appropriate in this topic. I believe that she is within acceptable parameters of at least one of these definitions.

I only chose my example of the US government keeping certain information "confidential" (or from the general public) as it is a proven fact that has been verified throughout history. Hence, "lie by omission".


I'm sorry, but unless you quoted the wrong part, that definition only applies to statements. It says "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally" You need three things there: a statement that is false, communication of it, and knowledge that it is not the whole truth.

This definition to not apply to omissions.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: What's on the table?

Postby ProfWag » 10 Oct 2012, 03:21

NinjaPuppy wrote:As I alluded to above, a persons position on a particular subject is usually based on feelings about that subject.

Ahhhh yes, but should it? If someone is trying to find the truth about a subject (be it 9/11, JFK, or Santa Claus), should not personal feelings about it be put aside during the research? Otherwise, all one is going to do is find like-minded answers when that may, or may not, be the case.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 03:45

Arouet wrote:I'm sorry, but unless you quoted the wrong part, that definition only applies to statements. It says "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally" You need three things there: a statement that is false, communication of it, and knowledge that it is not the whole truth.

This definition to not apply to omissions.

I obviously did not do a good job here with my explanation. Allow me to repost the second definition from Wikipedia:
Lie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.

So now we move on to "false statement" and "whole truth".
False statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

A false statement is a statement that is either willfully or unknowingly untrue. Though the word fallacy is often used as a synonym for false statement, this is not what is meant by "fallacy" in logic or most formal contexts.

A false statement need not be a lie. A lie is a statement that is known to be untrue and is used to mislead. A false statement is a statement that is untrue but not necessarily told to mislead, as a statement given by someone who does not know it is untrue.


Would you or would you not agree with the statement, if someone knowingly withholds information to make information look like it's something other than it actually is... that would be considered the act of telling a lie?

Pooh, probably not to you because you have a degree in law and you are well versed in what it means to tell the truth, the whole truth......

In court, truth is always in tension with admissibility, which is derived essentially from the rules of evidence adopted by courts. Admissibility itself is molded by often conflicting considerations of justice, relevance, precedent, probity, prejudice, and aid to the fact-finder; and in tension with the deliberate shaping of meaning by the questioning attorney in accordance with that side of the adversarial process. Only in the comic book Superman were truth and justice sought simultaneously.
http://www.jaapl.org/content/31/4/422.full.pdf

.....and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Which brings me to another question. If someone is an atheist, is this whole thing null and void? ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 03:52

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:As I alluded to above, a persons position on a particular subject is usually based on feelings about that subject.

Ahhhh yes, but should it? If someone is trying to find the truth about a subject (be it 9/11, JFK, or Santa Claus), should not personal feelings about it be put aside during the research? Otherwise, all one is going to do is find like-minded answers when that may, or may not, be the case.

How is that possible? What human being can completely ignore their personal feelings about a subject? You do have control over how you express those feelings while doing the research but those feelings are more than not the driving force to investigate in the first place. What you read first, how much of one side you read first has no bearing on anything. You've got to start somewhere, so you begin a journey for applicable information.

Of course a person will be more open to like minded answers. It doesn't mean that's what they are going to find however. Hence the continual questioning of the many answers that they don't want to hear. Only when the person is satisfied with their findings, will the questions stop.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 03:55

Only when the person is satisfied with their findings, will the questions stop.

Of course that's provided they don't get bumped off by someone making it look like suicide. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 04:45

I do love this:
The cliché "All is fair in love and war" finds justification for lies used to gain advantage in these situations.
Sun Tzu declared that "All warfare is based on deception."
Machiavelli advised in The Prince "never to attempt to win by force what can be won by deception,"
and Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan: "In war, force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues."
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby really? » 10 Oct 2012, 08:42

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:Ninja, not sure you're reading that wiki quote correctly. It says to deliver a false-statement. A "lie by ommission" is not a statement.

(not that I don't think people in the government have never lied, just saying the lie by ommission doesn't fit the bill)

You are right. A lie by omission is NOT a statement. But it's still a "lie" as per the quoted Wikipedia definition.

I'm not questioning if the US government has lied or ever lied. I'm questioning if Misha's choice of words are appropriate in this topic. I believe that she is within acceptable parameters of at least one of these definitions.

I only chose my example of the US government keeping certain information "confidential" (or from the general public) as it is a proven fact that has been verified throughout history. Hence, "lie by omission".


Keeping information from the public when it concerns national security is not a lie by omission. If you use the legal definition which is to omit truth when disclosure is called for. That means if you voluntarily tell someone what in a particular occurrence happened but certain information is left out that not a lie by omission. However, if you are asked to explain (disclose ) what happened and you leave information out that changes the story drastically that is a lie by omission.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Craig Browning » 10 Oct 2012, 19:00

:lol: I just find it rather humorous how far this topic has evolved WITHOUT the OP being anywhere near it.

The OP was obviously anti-American and I'm betting either very young, not from the U.S. or any Westernized nation or both. They dropped in, dropped an assumption bomb and ran off.

I will echo the term LIE however, in that Colin Powell has never forgiven the Bush Administration for playing him as it did. You'll notice that several key people abandoned the Bush Boat at the end of that first term and they did so with prejudice and still standing resentment & distrust.

There is evidence that W was plotting to create a conflict with Iran well before he got into office, I believe this is shared in Chris Mooney's "The Republican Conspiracy Against Science" along with reports by other credible authors involved with politics and society. While Jr. was crying publicly about Sadam trying to kill his daddy and the bogus WMD issue (proven time and again to not exist by the UN and other Intl. Investigation teams) the real dirt is the one most of society figured out; he owed his oil and military complex backers in a big way and a war with an oil rich nation was the only horse he could ride and get them what they demanded. Let's face it, W had no spine and had a very long history as a screw-up that shirked responsibility on a regular basis. . . then again, this explains why his father saw Dan Quayle as being like one of his boys -- stupid and easy to manipulate.

No, the "lies" weren't as cut & dry as the aforementioned definition, but we were lied to and it was said lies that lead to the U.S. betraying the International Community as well as its own citizens by declaring a war without direct provocation or immediate humanitarian concern (such as we find in Dar For, Syria, etc.) The Bush Jr. Administration turned the U.S. into being an aggressive nation which put the world on edge. Then too, this little betrayal put us all into a very ugly sense of economic turmoil that we've still not managed to escape. :?
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 10 Oct 2012, 20:02

Craig Browning wrote::lol: I just find it rather humorous how far this topic has evolved WITHOUT the OP being anywhere near it.

The OP was obviously anti-American and I'm betting either very young, not from the U.S. or any Westernized nation or both. They dropped in, dropped an assumption bomb and ran off.

Oh Craig, we have to get you to find more free time to do more reading around here. The OP is very much active and still around as well as from the US. As for why the OP hasn't had much to say.... probably because I jumped all over this one and had hours and hours of free time this past week.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 10 Oct 2012, 22:09

Craig Browning wrote:

The OP was obviously anti-American and I'm betting either very young, not from the U.S. or any Westernized nation or both. They dropped in, dropped an assumption bomb and ran off.


Craig, I am assuming "OP" means Misha? No, I did not cut and run. In fact, I started the thread to hear all views and have been watching it carefully. Sometimes it is best just to let others continue the discourse. Granted my original post was a bit broad. However, it was meant to be that way in order to create cognitive associations with "programs." I think it is working just fine.

As for your analysis of "OP" you could not be farther from the truth. Please be careful in labeling people in the future. It says a lot about you, correct?

I think your analysis of Bush is pretty fair in some respects.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 10 Oct 2012, 22:13

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Craig Browning wrote::lol: I just find it rather humorous how far this topic has evolved WITHOUT the OP being anywhere near it.

The OP was obviously anti-American and I'm betting either very young, not from the U.S. or any Westernized nation or both. They dropped in, dropped an assumption bomb and ran off.

Oh Craig, we have to get you to find more free time to do more reading around here. The OP is very much active and still around as well as from the US. As for why the OP hasn't had much to say.... probably because I jumped all over this one and had hours and hours of free time this past week.


Indeed you did, NinjaPuppy. I think you guys have nailed down lying pretty well. :ugeek:
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Oct 2012, 00:42

Misha wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
Craig Browning wrote::lol: I just find it rather humorous how far this topic has evolved WITHOUT the OP being anywhere near it.

The OP was obviously anti-American and I'm betting either very young, not from the U.S. or any Westernized nation or both. They dropped in, dropped an assumption bomb and ran off.

Oh Craig, we have to get you to find more free time to do more reading around here. The OP is very much active and still around as well as from the US. As for why the OP hasn't had much to say.... probably because I jumped all over this one and had hours and hours of free time this past week.


Indeed you did, NinjaPuppy. I think you guys have nailed down lying pretty well. :ugeek:

I also believe that we have a few good examples of pseudo-skeptic style tactics on here as well. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: What's on the table?

Postby ProfWag » 11 Oct 2012, 02:31

NinjaPuppy wrote:I also believe that we have a few good examples of pseudo-skeptic style tactics on here as well. ;)

And don't forget the "pseudo-believers!"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: What's on the table?

Postby Misha » 11 Oct 2012, 03:10

Moving on...

Ok, pseudo-skeptics and pseudo-believers let's wrap our brains around this "program." It's called "Operation Gladio." This is one of the granddaddy's to how programs are started and morphed for ulterior motives. It also illustrates how a "strategy of tension" can drive politics in the geopolitical scene. In fact, Prime Minister Cossiga rightly understood 9/11 as having the same modus operandi as Gladio. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fB6nViwJcM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga

C'mon guys, am I the only one who will dig and offer programs for this thread?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: What's on the table?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Oct 2012, 05:01

Misha wrote:C'mon guys, am I the only one who will dig and offer programs for this thread?

I still don't understand the question. :?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron