Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

It is utter nonsense to spew such in the face of a 3,000 employee fire department, or the thousands of people involved in the dozens of 9/11 truth organizations, such as https://www.ae911truth.org/ and the many thousands of people who support their cause to stand for truth.

I cited a US politician: "I think ... that our government IS a terrorist organization."

Your remark doesn't apply to these people.

In my many decades of work on behalf of a critical blog that questioned the idea that mind is produced by the brain, I have come across many people who selflessly stood for truth. I have seen that they lost. They didn't just face career and financial adversity, they also often didn't receive the respect and recognition from the public that they would have expected for choosing to give up everything for a righteous path. I've seen professors falter away and give up the fight. And I have seen some persevere.

Standing up for truth should be respected and awarded.

A simple look at the fact that the testimonies of people on the ground were ignored in the official investigations, combined with a 20-year later resolution by a New York Fire Department that demands an investigation aligned with controlled demolition, doesn't explain why you have been typing as a monkey.

[Sculptor1]

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

It is utter nonsense to spew such in the face of a 3,000 employee fire department, or the thousands of people involved in the dozens of 9/11 truth organizations, such as h*** the many thousands of people who support their cause to stand for truth.

The trouble here is that you have seriously misrepresented the 3000.
You have misrepresented the petition and its content.
It is NOT what you claim it to be.
THe petition wording is vauge enough to include a tiny minrity of idiots who think GWBush was responsible for the whole thing, but alos those who wish for qn equiry into the effectiveness of the response ,and the compensation for the first responders which has ben woefully lacking.
Yes there are lots of people looking for answers so they can best understand what happened on that day, but no one ony a handful of conspiriacy nuts who think charges were set.
I mean you did see the planes crash into the main two buildings!! Do you think that was just CGI?

[Pattern-chaser]

The Twin Towers attack was carried out by Saudi Arabian extremists, not as an isolated incident, but as a response to the US's undeclared War on Islam.

What is the basis for that assertion? How do the testimonies of the people on the ground, that align with controlled demolition, fit in? Do you believe that their observations must have been incorrect?

Since your narrative deviates from the official story, and thus could be considered a conspiracy theory, what caused you to adopt the belief that it is the correct narrative?

I offered some facts, and some context. But there are more facts, and there is much more context too.

Your "official story" is starting to resemble the JFK assassination, which even now remains controversial. Some of what is said (about both events) is true, and some are conspiracy theories, but it is not always easy to tell the difference...



P.S. The basis for my "assertion" is the testimony of Osama bin Laden, and other extremist (Islamic) leaders like him. They fight the US in response to what they see as its War on Islam, even if they have never used that exact phrase; their meaning is quite clear, I think.

[value]

I mean you did see the planes crash into the main two buildings!! Do you think that was just CGI?

I assume nothing, and I am not in a position to judge anything for validity. I am also not at all interested in politics or opiniated debates. I am not interested to tell people how they should live or what they should do. My interest in morality is purely philosophical. My theory is that the cosmos is fundamentally questionable and that it is basically "philosophy all the way down".

My interest lays in line with the conclusion of a recent topic of Pattern-chaser that asserted that opiniated debate has no place in philosophy.

The very idea that we have chosen a side before the discussion is a roadblock to progress. We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy. We should all be not just willing, but eager to see our preconceptions be disproved, because then we truly will have learned and become wiser.

I agree with this 100%, which is why I believe that debate has no place in philosophy.

I agree with this 100%, which is why I started this topic, to see if our members agreed with me or not.

[value]

THe petition wording is vauge enough to include a tiny minrity of idiots who think GWBush was responsible for the whole thing

That's not true.

The FDNY resolution contained the following clause in their call for a new investigation.

"overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day"

Your response that most people in the US lack basic education and reasoning ability, doesn't do justice.

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

I do not believe that it is fair to treat people who were on the ground when the buildings collapsed, as conspiracy nuts, when they tell what they observed. If their observations give rise to the idea of controlled demolition, then that should be taken serious.

It is 20 years later. There is a persistence in a government funded organization to consider. The context isn't indicative of conspiracy nut motivation.

FDNY Captain Karin DeShore: "Somewhere around the center of the World Trade Center there was an orange and red glow of light coming out. At first there was only one, but then it continued to pop up all the way around the building, which had begun to explode. There was a popping sound, and for each pop, it appeared first orange and then red flashes of light, all the way around the building on both sides as far as I could see. The pop sounds and explosions got bigger and went both up and down and then around the whole building."

FDNY employee, humbly, to his captain: "I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too."

Their testimonies were ignored in the official investigation.

A call for a new investigation - after 20 years - shouldn't be put aside as, in your literal words, "a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable".

With regard your claim that the FDNY petition is vague. This is the actual projection of their petition:

Commissioner: “We’re a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force,” Gioia said. “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last,” he added.

He also said the following in 2019: "There's a lot of testimony there from the firemen and police, first responders, as to what they saw and they heard. I believe about 200 or so mention explosions. They saw red flashes. There was a lot of popping, explosions, and everybody had pretty much... There was a common theme. They all said they thought it was... It almost looked like a controlled demolition. The [hundreds of] people [on the ground] actually said that.""

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
ff911truth-400.png (61.65 KiB) Viewed 1790 times

Firefighters for 9-11 Truth
https://www.ff911truth.org/
https://www.facebook.com/ff911truth/vid ... 224548074/

(2019) Seeking Justice for 9/11 Heroes: An Interview with New York Area Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/541-see ... pher-gioia

And then there is this, in 2023.

Vivek Ramaswamy
ramaswamy.jpg (41.38 KiB) Viewed 1790 times

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy demanded "9/11 Truth".

"I don’t believe the government has told us the truth. Again, I’m driven by evidence and data. What I’ve seen in the last several years is we have to be skeptical of what the government does tell us. I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary, but do I believe everything the government told us about it? Absolutely not. Do I believe the 9/11 Commission? Absolutely not.

I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers. Maybe the answer is zero. It probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero. But if we’re doing a comprehensive assessment of what happened on 9/11, we have a 9/11 commission, absolutely [that] should be an answer the public knows the answer to."

(2023) Vivek Ramaswamy Wants 'the Truth About 9/11'
https://freebeacon.com/elections/ramasw ... nt-theory/

Several months before in 2023, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also questioned the 9/11 attack publicly, by stating "strange things happened" and that he doesn't buy the "official explanation".

Robert F. Kennedy
robert-kennedy.jpg (129.43 KiB) Viewed 1790 times

(2023) RFK Jr. Isn't So Sure About 9/11: 'Strange Things Happened'
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234828619/

Again: I am not making a case for any narrative. From a philosophical perspective, all that would concern me is corruption itself, because it deviates from reason.

[Sculptor1]

I mean you did see the planes crash into the main two buildings!! Do you think that was just CGI?

I assume nothing, and I am not in a position to judge anything for validity.

You are not in a position to judge!!

Game over man!

[Sculptor1]

THe petition wording is vauge enough to include a tiny minrity of idiots who think GWBush was responsible for the whole thing

That's not true.

The FDNY resolution contained the following clause in their call for a new investigation.

"overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day"

Yet you are not in a position to judge as you so elegantly pointed out in another post.

[Sculptor1]

THe petition wording is vauge enough to include a tiny minrity of idiots who think GWBush was responsible for the whole thing

That's not true.

The FDNY resolution contained the following clause in their call for a new investigation.

"overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day"

Your response that most people in the US lack basic education and reasoning ability, doesn't do justice.

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

I do not believe that it is fair to treat people who were on the ground when the buildings collapsed, as conspiracy nuts, when they tell what they observed. If their observations give rise to the idea of controlled demolition, then that should be taken serious.

It is 20 years later. There is a persistence in a government funded organization to consider. The context isn't indicative of conspiracy nut motivation.

FDNY Captain Karin DeShore: "Somewhere around the center of the World Trade Center there was an orange and red glow of light coming out. At first there was only one, but then it continued to pop up all the way around the building, which had begun to explode. There was a popping sound, and for each pop, it appeared first orange and then red flashes of light, all the way around the building on both sides as far as I could see. The pop sounds and explosions got bigger and went both up and down and then around the whole building."

FDNY employee, humbly, to his captain: "I don’t know if I’m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too."

Their testimonies were ignored in the official investigation.

A call for a new investigation - after 20 years - shouldn't be put aside as, in your literal words, "a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable".

With regard your claim that the FDNY petition is vague. This is the actual projection of their petition:

Commissioner: “We’re a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force,” Gioia said. “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last,” he added.

He also said the following in 2019: "There's a lot of testimony there from the firemen and police, first responders, as to what they saw and they heard. I believe about 200 or so mention explosions. They saw red flashes. There was a lot of popping, explosions, and everybody had pretty much... There was a common theme. They all said they thought it was... It almost looked like a controlled demolition. The [hundreds of] people [on the ground] actually said that.""


ff911truth-400.png


Firefighters for 9-11 Truth
acebooff927462224548074/

(2019) Seeking Justice for 9/11 Heroes: An Interview with New York Area Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia

s/541-seeking-justice-for-9-11-heroes-an-interview-with-new-york-area-fire-commissioner-christopher-gioia

And then there is this, in 2023.


ramaswamy.jpg

Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy demanded "9/11 Truth".

"I don’t believe the government has told us the truth. Again, I’m driven by evidence and data. What I’ve seen in the last several years is we have to be skeptical of what the government does tell us. I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary, but do I believe everything the government told us about it? Absolutely not. Do I believe the 9/11 Commission? Absolutely not.

I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers. Maybe the answer is zero. It probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero. But if we’re doing a comprehensive assessment of what happened on 9/11, we have a 9/11 commission, absolutely [that] should be an answer the public knows the answer to."

(2023) Vivek Ramaswamy Wants 'the Truth About 9/11'
/elections/ramaswamy-claims-9-11-government-cover-up-pushes-great-replacement-theory/

Several months before in 2023, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also questioned the 9/11 attack publicly, by stating "strange things happened" and that he doesn't buy the "official explanation".



Again: I am not making a case for any narrative. From a philosophical perspective, all that would concern me is corruption itself, because it deviates from reason.

QED: This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public

[Pattern-chaser]

My interest lays in line with the conclusion of a recent topic of Pattern-chaser that asserted that opiniated debate has no place in philosophy.

That topic suggested that competitive debate was unhelpful to philosophers, and that co-operative discussion was a better choice.

How does this apply to your topic, and your "interest"?



"Opiniated"?

[value]

More specifically the following notion of chewybrian, which is beautiful in my opinion:

"We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy."

It is similar to how Bertrand Russell, a dedicated activist against war, perceived it, in his case against ethical notions:

"the [philosophical] truth is essentially neutral, it is the same for anyone."

My interest more simply, is fundamental philosophy. My background is business, and philosophy provides what in business is considered 'vision'.

My idea is that business (from a business science perspective) is actually for a large part about morality. The first business book that I read (a text book from Harvard University) started with an introduction that said, "we hope that you will use the information in this book for good" and the current paragon of business books is called True North, which is about a moral compass, and that leads the business world from a focus on authentic leadership towards moral leadership, with moral not implying being kind, but being good, which includes a type of success that can stand the test of time. And a next level of evolution of business science might be further advancement within the scope of morality.

With regard relevance to the topic, or perhaps more generally, for philosophical discussion. I intended to explain that I wasn't suggesting any narrative.

In my previous reply to Sculptor1, I showed that the notion 'conspiracy nut motive' isn't appropriate.

"I do not believe that it is fair to treat people who were on the ground when the buildings collapsed, as conspiracy nuts, when they tell what they observed. If their observations give rise to the idea of controlled demolition, then that should be taken serious.

It is 20 years later. There is a persistence in a government funded organization to consider. The context isn't indicative of conspiracy nut motivation."

Sculptor1's response that most people in the US lack basic education and reasoning ability, doesn't do justice, in my opinion.

So there is a case, there are thousands of people fighting for 'justice', people who have persevered and who appear to have grown stronger after 20 years, with two presidential candidates on their side in 2023.

The OP asks:

Why does Truth matter? Why do people 'fight for justice'? Is Truth more important than a peaceful state of mind?

In my response to a US politician, I showed that truth might not be more important than peace of mind. And my question was: what would that mean for morality in politics?

"People (in general) logically are ought (or feel inclined) to do what matters for maintaining a peaceful mind, which is essential for stability and progress.

Is 'truth' more important than what matters for prosperous existence of individual humans and people?" ~ https://gmodebate.org/911-truth/#politician

Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - started with the following in his work on morality Totality and Infinity:

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naiveté. The moral consciousness can sustain the mocking gaze of the political man only if the certitude of peace dominates the evidence of war. Such a certitude is not obtained by a simple play of antitheses. The peace of empires issued from war rests on war.

Morality will oppose politics in history and will have gone beyond the functions of prudence or the canons of the beautiful to proclaim itself unconditional and universal when the eschatology of messianic peace will have come to superpose itself upon the ontology of war.

Philosophers distrust it. To be sure they profit from it to announce peace also; they deduce a final peace from the reason that plays out its stakes in ancient and present-day wars; they found morality on politics. But for them eschatology - a subjective and arbitrary divination of the future, the result of a revelation without evidences, tributary of faith - belongs naturally to Opinion."

"Opiniated"?

Lévinas continues: "the extraordinary phenomenon of prophetic eschatology certainly does not intend to win its civic rights within the domain of thought by being assimilated to a philosophical evidence.

The eschatological vision breaks with the totality of wars and empires in which one does not speak. It does not envisage the end of history within being understood as a totality, but institutes a relation with the infinity of being which exceeds the totality. The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context. The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision;""

I believe that Lévinas describes the fundamental theory behind chewybrian's idea "We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy."

A Levinisian eschatological vision is what Russell's "truth is neutral" argument is about. It concerns an aspect of relevance that resides outside the scope of Opinion.

A user on this forum that might be a pseudonym of Robert Pirsig, author of the most sold philosophy book ever, said the following:

I think there are serious problems with the whole... subjective/objective idea. It does not allow for a wide enough range of possibility, it is an either or system. It shouldn't be a either or system.

Not objective and not subjective? Only philosophy can touch this, and that potential explains the notion "We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy."

As for relevance: was Lévinas right? Or does morality have a place in politics?

Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naiveté.

My argument is, that the 'intentive motivation' for a philosopher like Lévinas to create his work, is evidence of the opposite of his claim, as I once mentioned to you also.

Why would any sentient species want to support or aid the plague species that is destroying the world we all share? Surely sentient creatures would wish to oppose humanity in every way that they can? [Gaia again! ]

I replied: "By asking the question why, you essentially provide evidence for potential. Humans could make a mistake, but as is evident from your post, humans in general may not intend to do so."

Intention is where it all begins.

I wrote the following in my reply to a US politician:

"I recently read the following:

• There is an old saying in Washington that the cover-up is worse than the crime.
• Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

This appears to be evidence that a certain morality within the government is likely to be possible. One then simply needs to find the root of the problem, which may provide insights for experts of how it can be ensured that the government follows a righteous path."

[value]

I've created a multi-lingual eBook of the topic (multi-format PDF and ePub) that is now being promoted in over 50 languages on a website that is visited from literally every country in the world on a monthly basis.

Advertisement
911-truth-ad.png (77.04 KiB) Viewed 1579 times

eBook email
911-truth-email.png (146.64 KiB) Viewed 1579 times

Again: I am not into politics and the article doesn't convey a conspiracy theory of any kind.

As in my response to Sculptor1, who argued that most people in the US lack basic education and reasoning ability:

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

I do not believe that it is fair to treat people who were on the ground when the buildings collapsed, as conspiracy nuts, when they tell what they observed. If their observations give rise to the idea of controlled demolition, then that should be taken serious.

It is 20 years later. There is a persistence in a government funded organization to consider. The context isn't indicative of conspiracy nut motivation.

The eBook can be requested here:

https://gmodebate.org/911-truth/

My motive: to turn facts favourable, in line with my personal mantra. The eBook email ends with a philosophical case for the Lévinasian eschatology for peace with a practical example by MacGyver.

Philosophy of peace
closure.png (335.72 KiB) Viewed 1579 times

The underlying strategy has always been a defence of nature with regard eugenics.

Hopefully it helps people involved who faced the loss of family or friends. Lévinas (philosophy professor in Paris, France) lost his family by the Nazi's, so his work on peace is an example of what is possible with philosophy, to actually overcome hate and revenge, and to break the cycle of violence.

As for the philosophical importance of the subject, and the pursuit of Truth. I addressed that once when I was personally threatened by underhanded mass shooting threat corruption by the local municipal Government in the city where I lived, shortly after all my personal belonging were destroyed and after I had lost my home due to corruption of Justice of the city.

I had helped to uncover paedophilia in Justice: https://gmodebate.org/pedophilia/

During that underhanded threat event in March 2020, I wrote a topic on a Belgian politics forum where many people 'supported me' (my critical philosophical blog), which may have gravely altered the path of events. And, in line with my personal mantra, I started a topic on this forum, in which I asked the following question:

"According to many parties, the 9/11 terrorist attack was carried out by the government. If people believe that deep in their hearts, then perhaps, on the basis of the cited Russian wisdom, they can be incited / motivated to perform terrorism.

"A fish rots from the top down" - exemplary function of the government
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17208

There are simply people who are still concerned with the subject. I asked the following question a US politician a few years ago:

With regard the truth about the 9/11 attack. Would it be possible to share your motive to be involved?

"I became a political activist in the wake of watching the film JFK and doing research on the CIA. I was outraged and felt I should do something to challenge a policy which tortures, kills, and terrorizes people. "

The questions of the topic are still relevant:

Why does Truth matter? Why do people 'fight for justice'? Is Truth more important than a peaceful state of mind?

[Sculptor1]

I've created a multi-lingual eBook of the topic (multi-format PDF and ePub) that is now being promoted in over 50 languages on a website that is visited from literally every country in the world on a monthly basis. y:

This is a shocking reflection on the most basic failure of education and reasoning ability of the American public and their desperate desire to find meainging and explanation is events they find unfathomable.

I stand by my reflection here. When a member of congress has been re-elected despite her belief in "Jewish SPace Lasers", I really think the US has a long way to go.

[Lagayascienza]

value, are you serious? Can anyone really think that GB or the deep state (whatever that is) or anyone else other than Islamists with a deep hatred of the US, orchestrated 9/11? There is footage of those planes flying through the twin towers, FCS! There is footage of the Islamises cheering. Tell me you're not serious.

Of course, anyone in the west with an ounce of compassion will feel for those who died and for their families and loved ones, but do you think that perpetuating conspiracy theories will help them?

[value]

Would you direct the same 'you, you, you' argument against the 3,000 employee New York Fire Department that officially states after more than 20 years, based on testimonies of people that were on the ground when the buildings collapsed, that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition?

Well, they did receive that treatment, and my argument has been made clear in the previous posts, that I believe that it is dishonest to do so.

Your "are your serious" argument can be thrown right back at ya, for evident negligence of the consideration that testimonies of the people that were on the ground were excluded from the official investigation.

In that light, the official call for a new investigation for controlled demolition, by a government funded organization and on behalf of more than 3,000 employees, does mean something.

A NYFD commissioner wrote the following, to strengthen their message and call: "We’re a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last," he added.

"are you serious?"... Such an argument doesn't make sense at all in my opinion.

I have repeatedly made it clear that I personally have not made any assumptions about any theory. So far, I have acted only on behalf of evident corruption.

What does controlled demolition imply?

I must admit that I could consider that big buildings in the US and elsewere might have demolition built in, and that in certain events, the buildings could be brought down to prevent them from collapsing on their side. This would be an option to consider, but this also shows my lack of specialist knowledge since I am certain that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would know of such a profound built-in feature of big buildings, so that it might not be a viable option for consideration.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
aetruth.png (44.06 KiB) Viewed 1559 times

That leaves the question: what could explain controlled demolition that was observed by so many people?

As for a motive: fuel for war would be one of them.

There seem to be a lot of people who were against the war in Iraq. I remember a report by a New York reporter that questioned random people on the street about it, and people were against it.

I recently read the book The Journey Beyond Fear by John Hagel that became an iconic business book, of which the author, a business man, actually was an activist against the war.

Lots of people didn't want the war. They didn't want to bomb other people.

What barbarians would, in the words of UN specialists, destroy the water infrastructure in Iraq by which 1.5 million innocent people would die, among which 565,000 Iraqi children. They speak of 'intentional genocide'.

(2021) Intentional genocide: the targeted destruction of Iraq's water systems is a war crime (UN)
NATO military forces committed war crimes by depriving civilians of drinking water. The vast majority of the 1.5 million civilian deaths were caused not by the direct impact of bombs but by targeted destruction of water systems.
Sources:
- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
- Water under siege in Iraq
https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/water ... -depriving

Award-winning journalist John Pilger wrote a book about what happened that he named "Killing the Children of Iraq". Why would he have chosen that title for his book?

Killing the Children of Iraq
john-pilger.jpg (32.67 KiB) Viewed 1558 times

People didn't seem to want to be involved in such a war. Sy Borg recently wrote the following status quo retro-perspective idea about that war.

Since the US killed its hegemony with its Iraq escapades, global cooperation and security have diminished.

the Iraq invasion, with many thousands [1.5 million people] dead, trillions wasted and soft power squandered.

Who would want to be involved in such a thing?

I am still not making any assumptions since that is not my task. My interest is actually just fundamental philosophy and I am not emotionally or ideologically driven, and I am actually politically neutral. I wouldn't have investigated social injustice related matters, despite that I admire people who do. I have zero interests other than the strategic philosophical one with regard eugenics on nature, that I started a long time ago and for which I have just been 'following suit' so to speak.

[Lagayascienza]

As I see it, this is just dishonest sensationalism and click bait. There is not a skerrick of reliable evidence to support such a conspiracy theory. I could probably get 4000 signatures by next week from people who are willing to say that they think that maybe the Apollo moon landings were possibly a conspiracy to hoodwink honest, hard working Americans to take their minds of invading alien UFOs. No problem. And just let anyone try to prove with 100% certainty that it ain't true.