|
Post by walnut on Jan 4, 2016 20:34:44 GMT
I know, that is fascinating. But, two identical test subjects, and the 2 stimuli were not entirely different, but not definitely laboratory identical. The two intended results were identical, maybe that is a significant variable as well.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 4, 2016 20:35:19 GMT
I know, that is fascinating. But, two identical test subjects, and the 2 stimuli were not entirely different, but not definitely laboratory identical. The two intended results were identical, maybe that is a significant variable as well.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 4, 2016 20:36:04 GMT
Sorry about the double post, but the board is malfunctioning. Deleting one deletes them both.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jan 4, 2016 20:38:26 GMT
I don't believe there is much more to the event than what we were told. The government told us what happened, and Osama Bin Laden confirmed that same explanation exactly. Two planes were flown into the two towers and they were badly damaged, and a few minutes later, collapsed. What would anyone have possibly have gained from creating some dark conspiracy, which would certainly be uncovered anyway. Bush was set to retire as an ex-president with a terrific lifestyle, why would he care to "enrich his oil cronies"? If you even choose to believe that Bush was that incredibly evil, which I do not, what motivation would he have had to get involved in that? your prez is only ever there for a few yrs 8 at most ..but the people behind them have there own plans .. it's like the puppet master ..
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 4, 2016 20:56:50 GMT
I thought this conspiracy made Bush complicit. Who benefited? What was the goal?
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jan 4, 2016 21:25:24 GMT
those that wanted more power for them and less for the people .. worked out really well .. the goal is still not complete ...
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jan 4, 2016 21:27:08 GMT
May not work out quite as they planned, the civilians are all at rifle ranges training on their new anti-oppression devices.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 4, 2016 21:38:41 GMT
I read somewhere recently (here??) 1.4m Americans killed in America by Americans with firearms ...1963-2010 1.2 Americans killed in overseas conflict....revoltion to present. The training has been on going for years
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2016 0:47:44 GMT
I read somewhere recently (here??) 1.4m Americans killed in America by Americans with firearms ...1963-2010 1.2 Americans killed in overseas conflict....revoltion to present. The training has been on going for years The largest contributed to fire arm death is the "War" on drugs. 2nd largest contributed cause is the aftermath of war. Veteran suicides are one every 3 minutes. Not a preferred outcome.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 5, 2016 3:31:03 GMT
I read somewhere recently (here??) 1.4m Americans killed in America by Americans with firearms ...1963-2010 1.2 Americans killed in overseas conflict....revoltion to present. The training has been on going for years The latest revision of that shows 1.5 million deaths by firearms since 1968 ... but 63% of them were suicides, 33% homicides and 1% 'legal interventions' (gotta love that term), i.e., the cops only killed 15,000 people in a span of about 50 years (about 300 per year, that's about 0.0001% of the pop. in any given year). So ... if this was practice ... then they mostly practiced on themselves. As for wars, we got off a lot easier than Europe, with a military death total of 526,000 in both world wars. By comparison, our greatest national tragedy was what is referred to as the American Civil War (which it was not) where the total estimated military deaths amounted to 750,000 men ... greater than the total of all other American wars combined. Two-thirds of these were from disease. To put it in perspective, by the end of the war one out of every four Southern men of military age was dead, and many others maimed for life. It was said that the largest budget item for many states after the war was for artificial limbs.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 5, 2016 4:36:20 GMT
Try New Zealand then 19,000 deaths in the first world war population 1 million. Yes 2% and closest battlefield to home 15,000Km.
Imagine a war today where the US lost 7 million troops to the stupidity of wealthy second son comanders to silly to get a real job from a country on the other side of the world. One other less publicised or dicussed fact is the war that we started in was with the Turkish people, to their credit both countries hold the other in great respect and the conflict spawned Ataturke.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 5, 2016 13:01:16 GMT
One other less publicised or dicussed fact is the war that we started in was with the Turkish people, to their credit both countries hold the other in great respect and the conflict spawned Ataturke. Not quite 'Turkey' but the Ottoman Empire a Caliphate and one that the contemporary Islamic State in the Levant is trying to recreate. See Islam and World War OneThe rather strange arbitrary boundaries in the Levant sharing land between France and Britain were not accidentally created by ignorant politicians. They were created to break up national boundaries that may have allowed a recreation of the Caliphate. (This approach to removing national identity is what the European Union is planning with its 'Europe of the Regions'.) It is not so much a conspiracy as a lack of historical perspective and countries with totally different attention spans. A country that will forget something after a news cycle will continually be beaten by one that thinks in centuries. The Ottoman Empire goes back to Suleiman in the 1500's and people in the Levant understand the history and bear grudges going back that far.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 6, 2016 19:26:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 6, 2016 22:35:32 GMT
Had possibilities ... but they REALLY need a new editor.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2016 18:01:16 GMT
|
|