Skip to main content

View Diary: JPEN: The military is using NSA intercepts to spy on Americans (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Proof? (none)
    How about 4 hijacked airliners flying around in the most heavily defended american airspace for 90 minutes without 1 fighter plane scrambled to intercept them? that doesn't seem fishy to you?

    Hook 'em Horns! The national title will be ours tonight.

    by sadair on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 06:13:23 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Fishy yes (4.00)
      proof, no.

      Ocam is my friend.

      Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

      by Irrelevant Prolixity on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 07:03:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the problem with this is (4.00)
        there will never be proof for a hypothetical black operation like this, if that's what occurred.
        For example, I believe JFK was murdered by the mafia, possibly with some sort of inside help. A majority of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission. But there isn't definitive proof for this.
        You can look up Operation Northwoods, the burning of the Reichstag, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the USS Maine to see other possible examples of state sponsored terrorism against its own citizens to promote a war agenda.
        They're good at creating layers of complexity and confusion to hide what happened.
        That being said, you could use the "there will never be proof" argument to promote any wild explanation for complex historical events.
        So what I'm left with is my own intuition, and after reading about it and looking at the subsequent behavior by this administration, well...I could go on, but NSA is listening!

        "Republicans are men of narrow vision, who are afraid of the future." - Jimmy Carter

        by sadair on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 08:57:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  if Ocam is your friend (4.00)
        you must deal with the fact that Government complicity is a simpler explanation than a large number of unexplained (and highly improbably) "coincidences" . . . (beginning with they wanted something to happen to give themselves an excuse).
      •  Proof? (none)
        If you were standing in front of a guy with your eyes closed and felt someone hit you then open your eyes to see him still simply standing there what would you conclude?

        What's your proof that he hit you?

        Okay, suppose that there were two guys standing there. One of them is your best friend and the other your worst enemy. When you got hit again with your eyes closed and opened them to see both simply standing there what would you conclude?

        Would you conclude anything?

        One more time. Suppose there are three guys in front of you. One is your best friend, one is your worst enemy and one is a stranger. Go through the same exercise. What would you conclude?

        Would you conclude anything?

        Now repeat the above three exercises but replace "hit" with "chopped off your arm" and tell me that you wouldn't conclude something in each and every case. What do you think a jury would conclude?

        -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 03:45:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  incompent, yes (none)
      conspiracy? - gotta prove it -

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator. -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:33:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Add to That... (none)
      ...any attempt at an honest investigation was squished.  It's called 'circumstantial proof'.  I'm hatin' on that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site