October Stundie Nominations

[zaphod2016]

And I hereby nominate myself for openly talking to myself in the prior post. Not only do I want to win a stundie, I deserve to win. Vote Zaphod in 2008! The president is a space lizard! Freemasons run the country! False-flag was made-up by Dylan Avery and Alex Jones! Terrorism was invented in 2001!

And best of all- I'm gonna vote! Hooooo-ray for Democracy!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I will define "Terrorism" as:


Are you arguing that the overthrow of Mosaddeq was not a use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, SPECIFICALLY for political purposes?

who were they intimidating or coercing? seems it was a use of violence to overthrow, a bit more direct IMO

also, it wasnt entirely false flag either, unless you are arguing general zahedi had no involvement

 

[Horatius]

And I hereby nominate myself for openly talking to myself in the prior post. Not only do I want to win a stundie, I deserve to win. Vote Zaphod in 2008! The president is a space lizard! Freemasons run the country! False-flag was made-up by Dylan Avery and Alex Jones! Terrorism was invented in 2001!

And best of all- I'm gonna vote! Hooooo-ray for Democracy!

No one who actually wants a Stundie should ever be allowed to win one!

 

[1337m4n]

Seconded.

It's sort of like Catch 22--if you TRY to win a Stundie, you will never win one. Only those who aren't trying to win will ever win.

The logic behind this is simple: part of the qualification for a Stundie winner is humor, and a person who tries, but fails, to be intelligent is infinitely funnier than a person who is openly stupid.

 

[Hokulele]

I will define "Terrorism" as:

Damn that George Washington and his band of terrorists.

 

[zaphod2016]

Damn that George Washington and his band of terrorists.

Exactly my point- terrorism is a vague term that could apply to just about anything.

also, it wasnt entirely false flag either, unless you are arguing general zahedi had no involvement

Let me define my terms again. Based on the Wiki I linked to:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as though they are being carried out by other entities

Case in point: the AJAX was a covert CIA operation, conducted by the U.S. Government, which worked to overthrow Mossadeq without revealing that the CIA was behind it.

Obviously Zahedi was involved in the plot. No one disputes this. However, US and UK forces conducted the operation covertly, as to hide their own involvement. This is what qualifies it as "false flag"- US and UK agents were serving under Zahedi's flag, despite getting their orders and money from the Union Jack and Stars and Stripes.

Also, I do not dispute that this was a coup d tat. I simply add that this particular coup was also a false flag operation as far as the US/UK were concerned. As with most matters of geopolitics, there were many contributory factors. In this context, I am only focusing on the covert US/UK involvement, because my concern is demonstrating false flag. As far as Iranian history is involved, Zahedi is the more relevant figure by far.

From the Mossadq wiki we can add:

The extent of the US role in Mossadeq’s overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadeq, and describes him as impractical and naive, though he stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup.

Eventually the CIA’s role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mosaddeq was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

So, to reiterate: Operation AJAX was covert, involved members of the US government pretending to serve under another government, and used violence to coerce political changes. It is a perfectly legit example of a terrorist false-flag attack, illustrating that these events do indeed occur. It was eventually discovered, and thoroughly vetted, in the US Congress. It has now become common knowledge, and can be found in a plethora of history books, such as Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and just about every book I've ever read about the CIA post-1980.

Is there any remaining dispute, or have I made my case?

 

[RedIbis]

I am appealing directly to Travis to include the nomination of my post quoted here for the final cut.

My comment is so stupid and obviously, I thought that a building could be designed to prevent airplane impact, as opposed to being designed to collapse from airplane impact that it should take the prize.

This would also ensure that more funny comments, like those that followed, could be made mocking the foolishness of my logic, while simultaneously raising the level of discourse in this sub-forum.

So please, Travis, give me a chance to take home the illustrious Stundie.

 

[rwguinn]

Exactly my point- terrorism is a vague term that could apply to just about anything.



Let me define my terms again. Based on the Wiki I linked to:



Case in point: the AJAX was a covert CIA operation, conducted by the U.S. Government, which worked to overthrow Mossadeq without revealing that the CIA was behind it.

Obviously Zahedi was involved in the plot. No one disputes this. However, US and UK forces conducted the operation covertly, as to hide their own involvement. This is what qualifies it as "false flag"- US and UK agents were serving under Zahedi's flag, despite getting their orders and money from the Union Jack and Stars and Stripes.

Also, I do not dispute that this was a coup d tat. I simply add that this particular coup was also a false flag operation as far as the US/UK were concerned. As with most matters of geopolitics, there were many contributory factors. In this context, I am only focusing on the covert US/UK involvement, because my concern is demonstrating false flag. As far as Iranian history is involved, Zahedi is the more relevant figure by far.

From the Mossadq wiki we can add:



So, to reiterate: Operation AJAX was covert, involved members of the US government pretending to serve under another government, and used violence to coerce political changes. It is a perfectly legit example of a terrorist false-flag attack, illustrating that these events do indeed occur. It was eventually discovered, and thoroughly vetted, in the US Congress. It has now become common knowledge, and can be found in a plethora of history books, such as Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and just about every book I've ever read about the CIA post-1980.

Is there any remaining dispute, or have I made my case?

Nice derail
Wanna move it to another thread, please?

 

[zaphod2016]

Derail?

I made a statement of fact that was disputed by some readers. I then supported my assessment with clear evidence.

If you don't wish to be lectured on American history, don't dispute known facts.

I notice many of you "skeptics" don't discuss the arguments themselves, you resort to semantic word games (depends on what the meaning of "is" is) and snippy little remarks like "nice derail". I thought this was a forum to debate from a skeptical point of view. If I am in the wrong place, just say so, and I will happily go elsewhere.

 

[Travis]

I am appealing directly to Travis to include the nomination of my post quoted here for the final cut.

My comment is so stupid and obviously, I thought that a building could be designed to prevent airplane impact, as opposed to being designed to collapse from airplane impact that it should take the prize.

This would also ensure that more funny comments, like those that followed, could be made mocking the foolishness of my logic, while simultaneously raising the level of discourse in this sub-forum.

So please, Travis, give me a chance to take home the illustrious Stundie.

No problem. If you want in the finals that bad, then fine.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In the interest of sanity... what's the point of arguing whether or not a nomination is a worthy nomination? That's ultimately up to Travis, isn't it?

 

[dudalb]

Derail?

I made a statement of fact that was disputed by some readers. I then supported my assessment with clear evidence.

If you don't wish to be lectured on American history, don't dispute known facts.

I notice many of you "skeptics" don't discuss the arguments themselves, you resort to semantic word games (depends on what the meaning of "is" is) and snippy little remarks like "nice derail". I thought this was a forum to debate from a skeptical point of view. If I am in the wrong place, just say so, and I will happily go elsewhere.

I don't think Skepticism means what you think it means.

 

[RedIbis]

No problem. If you want in the finals that bad, then fine.

Thank you, and I intend to vote for it.

 

[SDC]

Isn't there a rule against voting for oneself? Or else there ought to be a special award for shooting oneself in the foot. ("I'd like to thank the little people who made this all necessary...")

 

[zaphod2016]

I don't think Skepticism means what you think it means.

Case in point.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this attitude does nothing to advance American skepticism. If this guy is typical of your level of bias, I'd rather hang with the crazies at Prison Planet. At least they are entertaining.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this attitude does nothing to advance American skepticism. If this guy is typical of your level of bias, I'd rather hang with the crazies at Prison Planet. At least they are entertaining.

Well, that's good, because we aren't here to advance American skepticism. Personally, I'm here representing the Bandersnatchii from the planet Lookatthat!

 

[X]

I am appealing directly to Travis to include the nomination of my post quoted here for the final cut.

My comment is so stupid and obviously, I thought that a building could be designed to prevent airplane impact, as opposed to being designed to collapse from airplane impact that it should take the prize.

This would also ensure that more funny comments, like those that followed, could be made mocking the foolishness of my logic, while simultaneously raising the level of discourse in this sub-forum.

So please, Travis, give me a chance to take home the illustrious Stundie.

This reads like sarcasm. I wonder if you realize why that quote was nominated in the first place?

It's this bit: "...building could be designed to prevent airplane impact..."


How does one design a building to prevent airplane impact?

Personally, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say "prevent collapse from airplane impact".
That's what the rest of your posts seems to imply was your point.

In which case, it's a typo (or missed word), and as such I don't think it qualifies for the Stundies. But then, I don't make the decisions on such things.

 

[Travis]

In the interest of sanity... what's the point of arguing whether or not a nomination is a worthy nomination? That's ultimately up to Travis, isn't it?

I suppose it's sort of like arguing the merits of an irreversible call by an umpire. There's no point but people do it anyways.

Actually I find these discussions interesting.

 

[Hokulele]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this attitude does nothing to advance American skepticism. If this guy is typical of your level of bias, I'd rather hang with the crazies at Prison Planet. At least they are entertaining.

Fair enough, I hang here because I find it entertaining. Unlike Prison Planet though, here I occasionally learn something useful. Read some of Dave Roger's posts, for example.

 

[Corsair 115]

How does one design a building to prevent airplane impact?

That's easy of course! You simply install SAM batteries and/or Phalanx CIWS turrets on the roof!