Generalizations & Labeling-"The Government Did It"

Try this Chris. These are the new forums.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...orum/index.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christophera

Can't forget the Stern board days. Threads with 65,000 views in a week.

To say, "Elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks." does not identify them as the undesireable elements. I would modify that and say, "Elements infiltrating our Government were complicit in the attacks." You are inviting discernment from the listener identifying that in order to protect the integrity of their government, they need to know the difference between one element and another.

"Infiltrator" implies agenda and the elements infiltrating goverment that perpetrated 9-11 definitely have that. Actions speak louder than words, so imply that there is an action to perceive which is done by a specific element.

---

Read my Sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eckolaker

Try this Chris. These are the new forums.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...orum/index.php

---

Very good,

I had to re register as Christopherab, but it worked!

My old username would not and my email, argus1@earthlink.net wouldn't get me a new pass and registration data.

I just posted in Einsteens thread.

The problem with, "9/11 was an inside job" or even "elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks" is we're passing judgement without a fair trial. In America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That being said, there is

MORE

Than enough information to arrest them as suspects in the crime of 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gold9472

But what "infiltrated" our Government? American criminals? Israeli criminals? Elements of our Government applies to either.

---

Whatever element did, the secrecy they did it with is supreme.

The important part of ths would be "infiltrated" which implies secrecy, we know it was secret already. It is obvious that if government was involved that "elements" were responsible or the secrecy would not be needed because the secrecy is what protects them.

Asking "who" seeks a target for blame. I prefer asking "how" first and feel assured that the answer to that will make the environment much better for discerning exactly "who".

"How" first, addresses the secrecy issue so we learn more before starting a blame phase. Beginning a blame phase before knowing how causes those responsible to hide "how" that much more energetically under more complete cover of secrecy.

That was the whole purpose of creating the "Bushco" label. The willingness of the public to blame indicates a need for the perpetrators to hide more, faster including anything that might be used to learn "how" which can be effectlvey used to determine "who".