Fading Exclamations

sigalph: Whatever do you mean by `911 deniers` anyway?? care to elaborate jsut a little?

PM: You, being the knowledgeable chap that you are, would also be aware that the pyramids were built by visitors from the star known to scientists as 12NOON from a galaxy known as the SardarGalaxy. These visitors brought along their own architect, about whom little is known to archaeologists other than his name (Sardar-Urs-truly) who is shown in one carving inside the Giza pyramid standing holding a waving flag (scientists believe that the americans got the idea of having a man wave this flag from Sardar-Urs-Truly). With him stands a mysterious figure, who has the words PM carved on his forhead in the carving. Entire PhD theses have been written about the deep meaning of the words PM (Prime Minister? Post Master?? PostMenstrual??)

The explanations you and urstruly provide (along with the strange coincidence of a certain similarity between your names and those of these space aliens) lead me to think that perhaps there is some connection between the two...now what was that theory about 9/11 you (or was it echooboom) was providing again? that it wasnt Arabs but Space Aliens??

re PM 175

I do not engage in name calling(but am beginning to agree with the welcome that RSax had for you). Go find one example where I have used an epithet against someone else. Now, if my message itself sounds insensitive, that`s not name calling.

The reason I do not argue with the 9/11 deniers or lunar-landing deniers is the same that I refuse to get into arguments with Holocaust-deniers for. You cannot argue against faith. I mean there are still people around who believe that the Pearl Harbor attack was staged by the US and that the Poles attacked Germany to trigger WWII. All the power to them. Sometimes these beliefs are the only ones such individuals have to wrap their cherished but precarious world-view with. Why should any sane individual give grief to such sorry souls?

PM

The flag is not fluttering; it is an ordinary flag (had to be light weight because it used to cost about 1 million dollars to send something weighing one pound in the orbit) and as one of the footage relaesed by nasa shows, an astronaut who planted the flag stretched it open and it stays open because there is very little gravity and no wind. So it stays stretched.

Having said that, the question arises is to how long it will remain stretched because there still is gravity on the moon (as a matter of fact t is only six times lesser than that of earth) so the flag must come down after some time.

I think the best explanation of these pictures is that some of the earlier lunar missions failed so they produced these images in the studio setting. Later, either they succeeded to land or their photographic techniques only got better.

HE:
Agree with your post al qaeda circa bef. 9/11 with a small addition. Ayman Al-Zawahiri was well known to Egyptians as a leader of the militant Al Jihad. In fact, he was in a Cairo prison for a long tim.

RSax,
You`re back! Good. Your mom must be better.

Urstruly:
re. Fake Lunar Landing , I guess that`s another layer of soap sigalph will have to rub off his face. Of course, he might jsut choose again ignore all evidence and discredit opponents with namecalling.
The site doesn`t mention another anomoly though.. that of the flag fluttering (gently) in a windless environment.

I think the only possible pragmatic leadership during the current crises, has to come from Europe. The Europeans seem to have the world figured out much better than the Americans and the Arabs. The later two groups are bent upon believing one conspiracy theory, after another. Many Arabs thinks Jews bombed the WTC. And 70% of Americans surveyed actually believe that Al-Qaeda had links with Iraq. Not realizing that in the First Gulf War, Afghanistan actually sent soldiers against Iraq as part of the coalition. And that Saddam and Al-Qaeda hate each other. And that there is about as much proof of Al-Qaeda being associated with Iraq as their is of the Jews bombing the WTC.

When you have populations which are so naively influenced, on world affairs, then people like OBL and Wolfowitz can get whatever they want done.

Iraq, a country, that had nothing to do with terrorism (at least outside its borders), and a country that was supported by the West when it was committing terrorism inside its border, is now turning into a hub of terrorism. If anyone is an Al-Qaeda terrorist, Iraq is the place to be. This is exactly what happened to Afghanistan, when it was invaded.

Other countries are once again, being given the with us or against us ultimatums on Iraq. These countries, like Pakistan, can only handle so many of such ultimatums. They are being given ultimatums by Al-Qaedas on one side, and USA on the other side. It`s a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation, for them. This will polarize the society.

Al-Qaeda was always hated. But now the USA is probably one of the most disliked, if not the most disliked nation in the world. How did this happen, to a country, which at one time was so highly respected? Yet the supporters of these two groups/nation see nothing wrong in their actions. The Bush supporters still support pre-emptive invasions as will the Al-Qaeda supporters.

A world order based on pre-emptive invasions will not be a very safe place.

In the meanwhile, the main problem, that is the mother of all these problems, i.e Israel/Palestine issue is getting bigger and bigger. Primarily, becuase the Europeans aren`t being allowed to take the leading role. Everything proposed by them, gets vetoed in the UN.

The only sane voice seems to be the Europeans. They know when to support the USA and when not to. They have a lot of clout and get listened to, unlike third world nations. And they have enough influence of Muslims and Jews etc., to not get completely pulled in one direction. And they are not the prime target of the Al-Qaedas of the world.

FAKED MOON LANDING

Why one has to ``beleive`` that moon landing actually happened. Why this matter is not transparent as any matter in science. So either moon landing happened or it didn`t. The forensic evidence based on the photographs provided by nasa itself is of very dubious nature. Could someone please explain the namoly in this pictorial evidence to me:

https://aulis.com/nasa6.htm

[#161 by sigalph235]
[Article reminds me of the fact that there are still people who believe that the moon landing never took place. Some people will always blame every ill on Jews, Zionists, neo-cons, Bush, etc etc. Oh, well. ]

---

Even if the moon landing really did take place, please do understand that practising and pious muslims do not put the blame on Jews, Zionists, neo-cons,Bush, etc etc.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

The puranas of the hindus have explicity and unabashedly mentioned about the moon being the integral part of India. Utoot ung . Their Vimmans ran regular flights then. Are you trying to convince the world that the puranas are wrong? Just to remind you, let todays journals become puranaas, 10/15 thousand years hence, and your nth great-grand siglaph235 would still be ridiculing these puranas-in-waiting.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There is more to life than logic. Now that is an illogical thought. or is it?
Only questions. only questions. sigalph235.

163:faisaluno

Twin Towers: 9/11 2001 , 8.50am

``Daikh thO, dil kay jaaN sey uthhtaa hai
Yeh dhuaaN saa, kahaaN sey uthhtaa hay``

The stress, in this discussion, is on , `Daikh thO`.

One cannot be, under the circumstance, more succinct or less secure.

re. faisaluno: #163
faisal, I agree with the general tenor of your post: Not completely with these points though:
`` most muslim societies are in need of serious reforms. this is a good a catalyst as any. inconvenient facts should be ignored because it will make the task much harder.
Am not sure what you mean by ``this``. If you are referring to shock and awe tactics used to root the `terrorists` out of their caves, I don`t see how this can have any postiive effect on the Muslim world. And I wonder if the reforms needed in the Islamic world can be effected, or the main issues even addressed, divorced of the issue of American meddling in their internal affairs-- be it Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, S. Arabia or Pakistan. The US has a record of undermining the democratic process in all these countries, and their (the US`s) militirization of their populace is also well known. Though one does not discount the wholly intrinsic factors responsible for the ugly state of affairs within those nations, one wonders whether these factors would have proved strong enough for the flourishing of ``terrorism`` were it not for the extrinsic ones.
(I parenthesize te word terrorism because it seems that a willingness to kill tens of thousands of civilians and generally bomb the daylights and civil infrastructure out of a city in order to establish startegic (read economic and military) control over a region still does not come under that rubric.)

``- muslims already have a fancy for conspiracy theories and an us against them mentality...``
This mentality is descriptive of any people in a pereived state of war. At other times it is not strong enough to seriously threaten others, and IMO easily amenable to reasoned/friendly suggestion.

``- americans are fighting forces whose actual battle is against muslims on this site. so we should all be willing the americans to succeed in this battle. this however should not stop us from questioning their tactics.``
Even if we accept the premise (Americans fighting forces opposed to `good` Muslims) one must question not only the tactics, but the logic of fighting monsters one has helped create, in a manner as to surely create even more. It wouldn`t be out of place to question the morality, either, of such combat when viewed against the backdrop of knowledge such as the PNAC`s broad objectives.

``- we are never going to find the full truth in terms of how much israelis knew and how much they told the americans. so not much point in wasting time debating this.``
I didn`t know Israeli `invovlvement` was an issue on this board. (I`ve not read the posts betwee #50 and #100). But certainly, it is not unprofitable to dig for answers or even merely ask the questions such as have been asked in #153.
rgds,
PM

....PM is back PMS-ing, as usual..

Request for Clarification from any of the distinguished posters on this board: A standard ``rationale`` provided by the ToD911s (Those in Denial about 911) in effect is that the Arabs are too stupid to be able to aim a plane so it hits the side of a building. Is this (a) An ``explanation`` of their denial, or (b) meant to portray the Arabs as some kind of ``muslim sikhs`` (no offense intended to the sikhs, incidentally) whose stupidity would serve as a rich source of jokes?

Just curious. I would be particularly interested if some chowkie ToD911 would provide further insights into this puzzlement.

re. 161: ``Article reminds me of the fact that there are still people who believe that the moon landing never took place. Some people will always blame every ill on Jews, Zionists, neo-cons, Bush, etc etc. Oh, well.``
Seeking to discredit a position by drawing unrelated `parallels` with well-known canards is an illogical, if easy, approach.
Why don`t you be a good (social) scientist and simply refute the allegations with reason instead? After all, the questions are being asked by many blue-and-red blooded Americans too. You up to it?
P.S. The `not-worthy-of-dignifying` refrain is equally evasive, if convenient.

re. #162:``I guess we need to send a Kemal PAsha to straighten those commie-lib Swedes.``
sshhh, bhaiya! Don`t burden echo with the expsure of such inconvenient contradictions. Heaven forbid-- he might actually be tempted to update his roadmap viz them stinky liberal commie sociopaths..er, I mean socialists.
rgds,
PM

re. faisaluno: #163
faisal, I agree with the general tenor of your post: Not completely with these points though:
`` most muslim societies are in need of serious reforms. this is a good a catalyst as any. inconvenient facts should be ignored because it will make the task much harder.
Am not sure what you mean by ``this``. If you are referring to shock and awe tactics used to root the `terrorists` out of their caves, I don`t see how this can have any postiive effect on the Muslim world. And I wonder if the reforms needed in the Islamic world can be effected, or the main issues even addressed, divorced of the issue of American meddling in their internal affairs-- be it Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, S. Arabia or Pakistan. The US has a record of undermining the democratic process in all these countries, and their (the US`s) militirization of their populace is also well known. Though one does not discount the wholly intrinsic factors responsible for the ugly state of affairs within those nations, one wonders whether these factors would have proved strong enough for the flourishing of ``terrorism`` were it not for the extrinsic ones.
(I parenthesize te word terrorism because it seems that a willingness to kill tens of thousands of civilians and generally bomb the daylights and civil infrastructure out of a city in order to establish startegic (read economic and military) control over a region still does not come under that rubric.)

``- muslims already have a fancy for conspiracy theories and an us against them mentality...``
This mentality is descriptive of any people in a pereived state of war. At other times it is not strong enough to seriously threaten others, and IMO easily amenable to reasoned/friendly suggestion.

``- americans are fighting forces whose actual battle is against muslims on this site. so we should all be willing the americans to succeed in this battle. this however should not stop us from questioning their tactics.``
Even if we accept the premise (Americans fighting forces opposed to `good` Muslims) one must question not only the tactics, but the logic of fighting monsters one has helped create, in a manner as to surely create even more. It wouldn`t be out of place to question the morality, either, of such combat when viewed against the backdrop of knowledge such as the PNAC`s broad objectives.

``- we are never going to find the full truth in terms of how much israelis knew and how much they told the americans. so not much point in wasting time debating this.``
I didn`t know Israeli `invovlvement` was an issue on this board. (I`ve not read the posts betwee #50 and #100). But certainly, it is not unprofitable to dig for answers or even merely ask the questions such as have been asked in #153.
rgds,
PM