• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Baker Confronts Osama Conundrum

pomeroo

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
7,081
Ace Baker has asked me to post his response to the Osama Conundrum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75138&page=20, post no. 67). I don't profess to know the technical reasons for his banning, but I prefer not to criticize someone who isn't around to defend himself. I'll restrict myself to commenting that we have here an instance of the Floating "They." Who could "they" possibly be? The incoherence of Baker's position mirrors the incoherence of the Fantasy movement in general.

If "they" are somehow apart from the members of the Bush team, then surely it makes a difference for "their" permanent war whether John McCain/Rudy Giuliani or Barack Obama/Dennis Kucinich gets elected in 2008. If "they" are conterminous with the Bush administration, well, aren't we right back at the Osama Conundrum?

Ace Baker wrote:

Why don't they want to capture bin Laden (or admit he's dead)? Easy. He's
worth much more to them alive and on the loose. Once bin Laden is gone,
they'll have to start over building up the next "public enemy number 1".
This takes time and effort. It's a hassle. The desire for permanent war
transcends the current administration, of course. Popular or unpopular,
hated or loved, Bush and co will be out in 2008.

It's similar to the question: If Bush and co. would do 9/11, why wouldn't
they plant WMD's in Iraq? The answer is the same reason Harry Truman didn't
strongarm Congress to get a declaration of war against Korea. He could have,
and likely would have left office less hated than he was. But long term, it
was much more important to establish the precedent that a president could
unilaterally declare war. So, next decade, Lyndon Johnson did the same
thing, after a nice false flag op to get some of the public on board.
Nowadays, the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional declaration of
war is considered a quaint anachronism.

Why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? They wanted to establish an important
precedent of unprovoked war. No doubt they were prepared to plant WMDs at
any point in time, if it came down to that. But as the weeks and months
rolled by, there was no impeachment. No war crimes tribunal of Bush. So, the
loss of "approval rating" for a temporary president is nothing compared to
the precedent. Now future presidents (and the big-money boys who own them)
can sleep well knowing that they can get away with invading a foreign nation
based on completely made-up lies and no evidence at all.

Ace Baker
 
I think posting messages from a banned member (if that is what is happening) is a bit of a no-no.
 
[=NoZed Avenger;2374116]I think posting messages from a banned member (if that is what is happening) is a bit of a no-no.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm not violating any rules. I did challenge him to resolve the Osama Conundrum and, to my astonishment, he actually made an attempt, which should count for something. As I said, I don't know why he was banned and I certainly don't intend to serve as his mouthpiece.
 
Truthseeker1234 has not been banned. He was suspended for 3 days, which ended Thursday morning. In general, we ask that banned members are not allowed to post-by-proxy. Since Truthseeker1234 has not been banned, there is no violation of the rules.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
pomeroo said:
Ace Baker wrote:

Why don't they want to capture bin Laden (or admit he's dead)? Easy. He's
worth much more to them alive and on the loose. Once bin Laden is gone,
they'll have to start over building up the next "public enemy number 1".
This takes time and effort. It's a hassle. The desire for permanent war
transcends the current administration, of course. Popular or unpopular,
hated or loved, Bush and co will be out in 2008.
Click to expand...

Ahh! So it is that the CT transends politics. Let me tell you this, if BUSH and co had been impeached and tried for the war or 9/11, I can GUARANTEE the truthers would be satisfied, and would not say that the DEMS are in on the whole thing. Now, however, it looks like BUSH etal will be out in 2008, so in order to continue on looking for someone to hang, and knowing the REPS will fall from the limelight, they have to encorporate the DEMS into it now...very pathetic.

As for the premise that they have to keep OBL around, well then why did they capture Saddam? Wasnt he better left alive and hiding, so that they could continue to stay in Iraq forever, to insure he didnt come back into power the minute they left?

What about the head Al-Qaeda guy in Iraq. They killed him (Blew him up I believe). Wouldnt they have been better off letting him continue to create havoc in Iraq, so they would have to maintain a presence there?

This is where your rational falls short ACE.


It's similar to the question: If Bush and co. would do 9/11, why wouldn't
they plant WMD's in Iraq? The answer is the same reason Harry Truman didn't
strongarm Congress to get a declaration of war against Korea. He could have,
and likely would have left office less hated than he was. But long term, it
was much more important to establish the precedent that a president could
unilaterally declare war. So, next decade, Lyndon Johnson did the same
thing, after a nice false flag op to get some of the public on board.
Nowadays, the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional declaration of
war is considered a quaint anachronism.

Why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? They wanted to establish an important
precedent of unprovoked war. No doubt they were prepared to plant WMDs at
any point in time, if it came down to that. But as the weeks and months
rolled by, there was no impeachment. No war crimes tribunal of Bush. So, the
loss of "approval rating" for a temporary president is nothing compared to
the precedent. Now future presidents (and the big-money boys who own them)
can sleep well knowing that they can get away with invading a foreign nation
based on completely made-up lies and no evidence at all.

Ace Baker
Click to expand...

While this part is not related to the conundrum, I would say it is equally silly. The fact is that BUSH and cronies destroyed their careers, and their legacies with the Iraq War. They also destroyed their chance to maintain power. If they had have planted the WMDs, which would have been very EASY to do, the war would still be seen as needed, and the ratings would still be good, and the chances of the REPS maintaining power through this FEAR would have been VERY VERY GOOD. Yet they did not. Your suggestion that their desire for personal success, maintenance of power, and legacy, was superceded by creating a precedent is just STUPID.

Thats all I gotta say for now.

TAM:)
 
While this part is not related to the conundrum, I would say it is equally silly. The fact is that BUSH and cronies destroyed their careers, and their legacies with the Iraq War. They also destroyed their chance to maintain power. If they had have planted the WMDs, which would have been very EASY to do, the war would still be seen as needed, and the ratings would still be good, and the chances of the REPS maintaining power through this FEAR would have been VERY VERY GOOD. Yet they did not. Your suggestion that their desire for personal success, maintenance of power, and legacy, was superceded by creating a precedent is just STUPID.

Thats all I gotta say for now.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Bullseye, TAM!
 
Relief

[=Lisa Simpson;2374170]
Truthseeker1234 has not been banned. He was suspended for 3 days, which ended Thursday morning. In general, we ask that banned members are not allowed to post-by-proxy. Since Truthseeker1234 has not been banned, there is no violation of the rules.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Click to expand...

Thanks for absolving me, Lisa. Geez, that red print is scary.
 
It's supposed to be scary to raise the fear within you of the almighty mod.

Where did this rumor of TS1234's banning come about?
 
well the oracle told us, of course. But you are the almighty mod, should you not know this oh omniscient one?

TAM:)
 
pomeroo said:
Ace Baker wrote:

Why don't they want to capture bin Laden (or admit he's dead)? Easy. He's
worth much more to them alive and on the loose. Once bin Laden is gone,
they'll have to start over building up the next "public enemy number 1".
This takes time and effort. It's a hassle. The desire for permanent war
transcends the current administration, of course. Popular or unpopular,
hated or loved, Bush and co will be out in 2008.
Click to expand...

This is silly for other reasons as well. This vast NWO cabal has the resources to hijack the entire US government, both major parties, and the mainstream media, but they balk at having to "create" a new "bad guy" because it's a "hassle". They'd rather he continued to evade capture and make them look incompetent.

How hard would it be to create a new bad guy? American Idol creates new "celebrities" every few months, and that's with bad music that lots of people hate. Whip up a few new terror attacks, post some new guy's "Boo!" video on Google, and bam! New bad guy, made to order. You get the ever-lasting fear, and you get to look good as well.
 
[=Lisa Simpson;2374261]I did know it. Which is why I looked at this thread and thought "huh?".
Click to expand...

Well, I knew that Ace Baker was banned because he told me that he was banned and... Oops. I think I'll be toddling along now.
 
Horatius said:
This is silly for other reasons as well. This vast NWO cabal has the resources to hijack the entire US government, both major parties, and the mainstream media, but they balk at having to "create" a new "bad guy" because it's a "hassle". They'd rather he continued to evade capture and make them look incompetent.

How hard would it be to create a new bad guy? American Idol creates new "celebrities" every few months, and that's with bad music that lots of people hate. Whip up a few new terror attacks, post some new guy's "Boo!" video on Google, and bam! New bad guy, made to order. You get the ever-lasting fear, and you get to look good as well.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I mean if Hollywood can do it, and they cant even get their guys to win the election, than the evil Cabal could certainly create the bad guys as needed...lol

TAM:)
 
Rational Choice

For everyone who thinks that twoofers are dumb: If you were Ace Baker and your choice was to try to defend the steaming pile you shoveled or pretend that you were banned, which would you pick?
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Well, I knew that Ace Baker was banned because he told me that he was banned and... Oops. I think I'll be toddling along now.
Click to expand...

Well you shouldn't believe anything that LieSeeker says anyway. He posted very gruesome photographs of dead bodies over on the politics forum.
 
Sorry Ron. I tried, for a moment, to think like ACE. I got a sudden, severe headache, followed by an audio hallucination that told me that Judy Wood thought I was cute, then I simply passed out...so you see, I cant answer your question, as there is no way I can think like ACE.

TAM:)
 
pomeroo said:
Why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? They wanted to establish an important precedent of unprovoked war. No doubt they were prepared to plant WMDs at any point in time, if it came down to that. But as the weeks and months rolled by, there was no impeachment. No war crimes tribunal of Bush. So, the loss of "approval rating" for a temporary president is nothing compared to the precedent. Now future presidents (and the big-money boys who own them) can sleep well knowing that they can get away with invading a foreign nation based on completely made-up lies and no evidence at all.
Click to expand...
Uh, doesn't sound plausible to me.

I'd say that Iraq has used up US political credit, both internally and abroad, and there's vanishingly little left. America is now far, far less likely to "get away with invading a foreign nation", because most people will assume any case made is somewhat less than reliable (putting it politely) and look for considerably more evidence. Far from establishing "an important precedent of unprovoked war", they've made it very difficult to imagine how that could happen again.

And the simple fact is none of this need have happened, at least if the "inside job" theory were true. Faking WMDs would have done it. Properly linking Iraq to 9/11 would have been better still. Or have a 9/11-type attack with Iraqis taking part, where WMDs were involved. But no, we're supposed to believe the current situation is preferable? I don't think so...
 
Aarrrgh!

[=T.A.M.;2374306]Sorry Ron. I tried, for a moment, to think like ACE. I got a sudden, severe headache, followed by an audio hallucination that told me that Judy Wood thought I was cute, then I simply passed out...so you see, I cant answer your question, as there is no way I can think like ACE.

TAM:)


"Judy Wood thought I was cute"

Note to self: NEVER, EVER, attempt to eat lunch while fooling around in this forum.
 
pomeroo said:
For everyone who thinks that twoofers are dumb: If you were Ace Baker and your choice was to try to defend the steaming pile you shoveled or pretend that you were banned, which would you pick?
Click to expand...

And then realize: He did both!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom