Pages

circular-reasoning

Conspiracies, Cults and Circularity

circular-reasoning

I regard Gilad Atzmon as one of Israel’s most effective critics. But I criticized his speculation that the killing of seven people by a Muslim terrorist in France in March this year, was an Israeli ‘false flag’ operation (1). Note that his guess was tentative. He didn’t say Israeli involvement was likely.

But why would anyone even suspect that the Jewish state organised the murder of French-African soldiers and Jewish children? When Guardian writer Fiachra Gibbons misattributed the Toulouse murders, there was some slight basis to his assumption. Only one party, in French history, has killed a). black soldiers, and b). Jewish children: the Nazis. So Gibbons jumped to the conclusion that neo-Nazis were responsible (2).

In accord with the Guardian‘s liberal politics, he saw an opportunity to blame the murders on far-right anti-immigration rhetoric. The newspaper ended up with egg on its face when the killer turned out to be French-Algerian.

Atzmon’s idea was more tentative; it had no basis in fact whatsoever.

In the first place, there is no history of the state of Israel murdering people inside Western countries.

Secondly, unlike the Guardian, he made his mistake after the fatal shooting of Mohamed Merah by the police, commenting lamely that the suspect may have visited Israel. This evidence falls some way short of overwhelming.

Finally, homicidal Islamic extremists exist; Israel has no need to invent them.

To deduce, from the fact that Islamophobia benefits Israel, the idea that the Israeli government has organised a large and varied series of attacks, successfully making them all look like Islamic terrorist acts, which in turn provoked Islamophobia among idiots, is a complicated example of the logical fallacy known as ‘cui bono?‘.

After I posted an article mildly criticizing Atzmon’s comment linking Merah and Mossad as ‘pointless and tasteless‘ (3), commenters on deliberation.info continued to defend the view that alleged terrorists are really Israeli agents.

Following a bit more discussion, in which I was repeatedly called a ‘hasbara troll‘ for my ‘cognitive dissonance‘ in the face of the ‘overwhelming evidence‘ that terrorist attacks are really false flag operations, and accused of having a ‘Jewish power mentality‘ for using formal logic, I began to ask myself whether it’s inevitable that defenders of the Atzmon perspective believe this nonsense. Whether they are subject to a process where fanatics are selected, and doubters driven away. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Stalin’s communist parties got loonier and loonier during the twenties and thirties. Modern examples of self-reinforcing cults include Scientology and the 9/11 truth movement.

To be fair, many of the responses to my arguments on deliberation.info are not as daft as the ones I cited above. But most of them suffer from the same circular logic.

Believers can’t understand why their position is circular, because it’s circular. Julian Assange needs our support, but he is called a ‘gatekeeper‘ by conspiracy theorists because he hasn’t published evidence proving that Israel is the root of all evil. Rather than using Wikileaks to test their theory, they blame it for failing to confirm it. Circular theories undermine solidarity, just as they did in the thirties.

It’s like when a Bible literalist hears the case for Darwin’s theory of evolution. He reminds himself that the Devil has the best arguments. For him, the fact that evolution sounds plausible, is evidence of its falsehood. Someone trapped in a religion like that cannot get out of it, since no possible argument could refute it, even in principle. It’s the same with the notion that Israel is behind Islamic terrorism. If you question this idea, the faithful think it’s because you are a ‘controlled asset‘. So why do I bother?

Atzmon writes about ‘anti-Zionist Zionists‘ undermining Palestine solidarity. Some of his readers mistranslate that into talk of ‘infiltrators’. Dismissing falsification as ‘controlled opposition‘ is bad enough, but some followers of the creed have an unjustifiably high opinion of their own ability to detect spies, and this delusion could be as harmful to the cause as the crypto-Zionists themselves.

  1. http://www.deliberation.info/is-it-an-israeli-false-flag-again
  1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/toulouse-shootings-race-religion-murder-france
  1. http://www.deliberation.info/how-true-911-truth

 

 

Share Button

39 Responses to Conspiracies, Cults and Circularity

  1. who_me August 16, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    another hasbara piece from zio-jay. this one is quite pathetic, even by the standards one usually associates with jay-hasbara. andrew mathis will be proud of his apprentice. a few examples:

    “Atzmon’s idea was more tentative; it had no basis in fact whatsoever.”

    jay knows this for a fact, does he? :D a ludicrous assumption based upon hasbara propaganda. jay is only using a line he thinks will exonerate jp/israel.

    “commenting lamely that the suspect may have visited Israel.”

    lamely? funny hasbarat jay using such an insult. i guess it’s an inevitable result of an indefinitely prolonged adolescence. :D

    “To deduce, from the fact that Islamophobia benefits Israel, the idea that the Israeli government has organised a large and varied series of attacks, successfully making them all look like Islamic terrorist acts, which in turn provoked Islamophobia among idiots, is a complicated example of the logical fallacy known as ‘cui bono?‘.”

    hasbarat jay apparently just learned of a term called “cui bono”, but still hasn’t learned what it means. many all across the web have described how false flag terrorist ops benefit israel, and have documented specific examples. jay knows this. so is the boy being dishonest, or does he have a brain disorder that prevents him using basic logic? as he is a zionist, well, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. :D

    “After I posted an article mildly criticizing Atzmon’s comment linking Merah and Mossad as ‘pointless and tasteless‘ (3), commenters on deliberation.info continued to defend the view that alleged terrorists are really Israeli agents.”

    imagine that, after zio-jay told everyone what they should think, they went ahead and defied him. a sure sign civilization is near “the end”. ;)

    “In the first place, there is no history of the state of Israel murdering people inside Western countries.”

    i’ll end on that one. a quick web search would show that to be a lie. it basically underlines the dishonesty inherent throughout this whole hasbara exercise by zio-jay.

    • who_me August 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

      well, there is another thing i noticed about this hasbara piece. zio-jay has it in for atzmon. he mentions his name no less than 5 times in this sad scree. all because atzmon had the unbridled temerity to speculate israel was behind a terrorist act. that is some rather weird obsessive behaviour by jay “the world’s leading expert on everything” knott. apparently the boy has had it in for atzmon for a long time running and saw an opening for a cowardly attack.

      when ariadna went on vacation, jay, being the adolescent public skoolboi he still is, went about writing insulting comments after some she wrote, obviously thinking she would not be around the site much, if at all, while away, and that he would get in the “last word”. perhaps zio-jay thought atzmon left the site and would not respond to his attacks? it’s not clear if atzmon is still going to be engaging here. i wouldn’t put it past jay to wait and attack atzmon till after he felt it was “safe” to do so unopposed. jay’s glee at seeing the division caused by the agent laura/khalid hasbara ops was quite evident.

  2. Jay Knott August 17, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    I would just like to take the opportunity to deny that the above comments were written by me under a pseudonym in order to confirm my argument.

  3. Ariadna Theokopoulos August 17, 2012 at 5:29 am #

    Who_me seems incapable of having a balanced view on anything jay writes.
    Not to beat my own drums but despite my past disagreements with Jay, I do not share who_me’s trenchant negative opinion about jay’s piece.

    First of all it has very nice graphics, especially the colored one, something that would pass muster even with Jon and something I have been incapable of providing with any of my posts.
    It’s true that the sentence starting with “To deduce, from the fact… ” has bad punctuation but I have decided not to mention this at all, given my bad track record with typos, even though this mild criticism might have balanced my overly laudatory comment.

    The most important thing in his piece is this statement by Jay that I salute unreservedly:
    “Whether they are subject to a process where fanatics are selected, and doubters driven away. ”
    – Jay is a fervent, fanatical and furious (I felt the need for some “f”‘s) defender of the Boxcutter Boys’ Conspiracy (BBC) theory –an embrace that does not allow any daylight between him and the 9/11 Commission report.
    In view of this, some will call his implied self-description as a “doubter” blatant chutzpah. But I would not be among them.
    I consider his first timid, tottering toddler’s (just to get away from Fs) step toward beginning to doubt the BBC theory.
    –I support the above hunch with the emotionally corrupt grammar he succumbs to: “Whether they are subject to a process where fanatics are selected, and doubters driven away.” is not even a sentence. It is a cry!
    He wants to doubt. He is ashamed.
    Pity that who_me does not have my optimism and generosity.

    • who_me August 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

      “First of all it has very nice graphics, especially the colored one,”

      the coloured one is pretty, but the b&w one is rather boring and pointless. see, + & -, my view of jay’s article is not entirely unbalanced. ;)

      btw, aren’t those people who think everyone is a stalinist who disagrees with their pov a part of a weird, fringe cult? odd that jay neglected to mention that cult.

    • Jay Knott August 29, 2012 at 3:37 am #

      ‘Does not allow any daylight between him and the 9/11 Commission report’. Not true.

      • who_me August 29, 2012 at 3:43 am #

        “‘Does not allow any daylight between him and the 9/11 Commission report’. Not true.”

        the 9/11 commission report put more blame for the op on israel than jay would have liked to have seen. ;) :D

    • etominusipi August 31, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

      a generous, balanced comment Ariadna – didn’t pay sufficient attention when i first read it two weeks ago.

      although i am no psychologist may i timidly cite Jay’s phrase:

      He reminds himself that the Devil has the best arguments.

      as another piece of evidence, albeit ambiguous, for your hypothesis that Jay is reaching out towards the truth on this one. if so i salute his courage. we all have had to break through the barrier of powerful but unsupported assumptions about the nature of political reality. your BBC (boxcutter bois conspiracy) is appealing precisely because it is just what, in an ideal world, we would all have liked to have believed, just as that other, darker BBC (the brutish broadcasting conspiracy) would like us to believe that Israel is a ‘nice’ country, not a rogue state whose very foundations were laid by blackmail, bribery, terror and gangsterism.

  4. Blake August 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    The usurping zionist entity took terrorism to Palestine, and the world at large (Menachem Begin bragged as much), one cannot blame folk for putting 2 and 2 together and questioning the MSM who have always been complicit in zionist criminal activities for over 6 decades now.

  5. etominusipi August 18, 2012 at 7:18 am #

    i had previously regarded the online etymological dictionary as a useful work of popular scholarship, until alerted by the following two entries to its blatantly anti-semitic point-of-view:

    terrorism
    1795, in specific sense of “government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France” (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

    If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror — virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent.[Robespierre, speech in French National Convention, 1794]

    General sense of “systematic use of terror as a policy” is first recorded in English 1798. At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating Ger. Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for “deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants.”

    terrorist (n.)
    in the modern sense, 1944, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine — earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) — from Fr. terroriste; see terror + -ist (also cf. terrorism). The tendency of one party’s terrorist to be another’s guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in reference to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the “Spectator,” Oct. 20, 1979).

    it is quite obvious the word ‘terrorism’ has become a political football. it is time the referee’s whistle was blown on its use, and this term be for once and all kicked out of the stadium of public debate and into orbit around one of the minor moons of Jupiter.

    unfortunately this has become more difficult due to the recent ruling by our zionist-dominated Home Office, that anyone refusing to use the word ‘terrorism’ at least once a day should be suspected of being the agent of a foreign power.

    although the term ‘foreign power’ is a catch-all, we all know, thanks to the efforts of BW and AT, that the main threat under consideration, is from a growing internationalisation of propaganda from the armed insurgency against the legitimate regime in Palau.

  6. etominusipi August 18, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    CUI BONO?

    sometimes a single phrase from the pen of a master of logic can cut through the red tape of communist lies at a single stroke, liberating the mind immediately from decades of soporific self-deception.

    i therefore owe a debt of gratitude to the author of conspiracies, cults and circularity when he wrote:

    …a complicated example of the logical fallacy known as ‘cui bono?‘.”

    if i had seen that decades ago it might have saved me from my forty years of wandering through a wilderness of meaningless drivel!

    however, better late than never!

    it is indeed a huge, nay, a monstrous, perversion of logic to think that whoever is the beneficiary of a crime would have any conceivable motive for committing it. this provides excellent cover for the real perpetrators, who are never even suspected, because they have (with the usual fiendish cunning of such groups) cleverly chosen to only commit outrages which can be of no conceivable service in achieving their outlandish aims.

    • who_me August 18, 2012 at 8:25 am #

      you know, etominusipi, i may have been a little too harsh on jay about his use of cui bono. rereading that section of his article, i realised he may not, in fact, have intended it to mean placing the lead singer of an over rated rock group in line (perhaps outside a theater or unemployment office – i was not really sure where), but instead, he was referring to cuing up the deceased ex-husband of cher, probably as part of some sort of macabre, arcane ritual. being a stalinist, 9/11 conspiracy fanatic, i am prone to confusion in those kinds of things.

      • etominusipi August 18, 2012 at 9:53 am #

        curiously, who_me, i have a well placed informant in the top echelons of the music industry who stated categorically, albeit off the record, that the same lead singer of an over rated rock group was spotted (through his heavy disguise) by a clutch of American teenage girls in 1997 who shouted “Coooeyy!! B_no” to him – the star was whisked away by his bogyguard, but not before the cry had been taken up by a number of bystanders.

        whether by accident or the operations of some sinister group (like the shadowy masterminds behind deLiberation and other internet mouthpieces for slander and filth), the phrase has been repeated ad nauseam on the internet over the last decade or so.

        this might not have been so bad, if it had not become insidiously and indelibly attached to an obscene conspiracy theory that Israel had something to do with the 911 Boxcutter Tragedy.

        the Knesset could not stand idly by and have its international credibility thus held up to ridicule by the Palestinian-dominated World Wide Web. i hope Jay will not mind me telling you that he was tasked with this psyop by no less a person than war-hero (and currently premier) Netanyahoo. I support Jay’s efforts to correct this abominable slander, though i fear it may be an uphill struggle of Sisyphean proportions.

        the misattribution of the phrase to the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero is of very recent origin, and due to several forged documents in Latin which enemies of the state of Israel (led by well-known Wahabi fanatic Mohammed Atta) infiltrated into the British Museum and the US Library of Congress on September 13th 2001, under cover of the widespread public panic which followed the Boxcutter Attack despite valiant attempts by our politicians and the news media to encourage people to keep calm and carry on shopping, in order to save the US economy.

        according to Prof Samuel Goldstein of the Tel Aviv Institute of Truth, no such person as ‘Cicero’ ever existed, and all apparent references to this fiction have been proved, without exception, to be forgeries. indeed careful study of the paper and ink of all such documents, using revolutionary and innovative techniques of historico-chemo-crypto-graphology perfected in Prof Goldstein’s lab, show that they were all printed on the same press as that most insidious of all anti-semitic forgeries, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    • Jay Knott August 29, 2012 at 3:29 am #

      “Outrages which can be of no conceivable service in achieving their outlandish aims”. One point rarely raised is how September 11th didn’t help al-Qaeda, in fact it greatly harmed its cause. They used to have a country they could operate from. ‘Cue no se beneficia?’ is also a fallacy.

      • who_me August 29, 2012 at 3:37 am #

        “One point rarely raised is how September 11th didn’t help al-Qaeda, in fact it greatly harmed its cause. They used to have a country they could operate from.”

        noooo, 9/11 didn’t help that relatively obscure terror group called al qaida at all, jay…are you capable of intelligent thought, jay, or has the hasbara completely fried your brain? :D

    • Jay Knott August 29, 2012 at 3:34 am #

      It’s a ‘perversion of logic to think that whoever is the beneficiary of a crime would have any conceivable motive for committing it’ says etominusipi, sarcastically responding to my claim that ‘cui bono?’ is a logical fallacy. But that’s not what ‘cui bono?’ implies. The logical fallacy is not the generation of a hypothesis – that’s reasonable – but the claim to have proven it.

      Furthermore, the 9/11 truth theory greatly exaggerates how much Israel benefitted anyway.

      • who_me August 29, 2012 at 3:41 am #

        the long term effects of tribal mentality is that it actually dumbs down those who sell their soul for the tribe. instead of looking at things rationally, they only see things from the pov of the tribe. soon, reality goes the way of the trilobites.

  7. Jay Knott August 29, 2012 at 3:23 am #

    A room full of monkeys with typewriters would eventually write a valid criticism of my articles. who_me’s style makes it harder to accept corrections, even if he stumbles on a reasonable one. He points out, on another page, that Israel DID murder someone in a Western country – a fellow named Ahmed Bouchiki, in Norway in 1973. I stand corrected, and I’ll have to refund the money Mossad paid me to write the article.

    This does not answer the main point, however. It’s about logic.

    • who_me August 29, 2012 at 3:31 am #

      “A room full of monkeys with typewriters would eventually write a valid criticism of my articles.”

      have you no self respect at all left, jay?

      • etominusipi August 29, 2012 at 4:21 am #

        assertion A:

        a room full of monkeys with typewriters
        would eventually write a valid criticism of my articles

        if true, assertion A implies (as a matter of logic, as J might say) the existence of at least one valid critique of said articles.

        the effectiveness of such a critique does not depend in any way upon whatever process is hypothesized to have it printed.

        unless J is fooling us, or simply flailing in the dark, we may assume that he has reasonable grounds for asserting assertion A.

        such reasonable grounds can only be of the form of (putative or actual) knowledge in J’s possession that there are serious flaws in the arguments he presents in his papers.

        eto’s question

        given this admission, why does J not simply himself undertake to correct the flaws in his own reasoning, rather than relying on the rather dilatory process of assembling a group of aleatoric simian stenographers to do the work for him?

        we all make mistakes – but it is the willingness to acknowledge and correct our mistakes which is of the greatest assistance in searching for truth. the monkey and typewriter method gets results, for sure, but it does not conform to standards of currently accepted best practice within the ulama.

        • who_me August 29, 2012 at 4:41 am #

          you do realise, etominusipi, that once jay reads your logical destruction of his howler, he will damn you as a stalinist for ever more. :D

          • etominusipi August 29, 2012 at 6:07 am #

            i will try to get the editor to delete it before J sees it then. thanks for the tip who_me. i would rather order the death by starvation of 30 million Ukranian peasants than be thought a stalinist.

            on the other hand perhaps the discipline of democratic centralism would be a useful form of self-regulation for the majority Boxcutter Community, since they vigorously reject the techniques of Circulating Argument which govern the exchange of illogical facts and hypotheses amongst 911 ‘truthers’.

            The Conversion of St Ambrosius

            a playlet for schoolchidren

            BOXCUTTER THEORIST No 911 involvement of Israel!

            CONFUSED ‘TRUTHER’ how can you be sure?

            BT that is the line, comrade. it is clearly stated in the comprehensive 11,000 page report commissioned by the politburo to look very deeply into all these matters. as you know, to question the line is to play into the hands of counter-revolutionary forces. in any case Comrade Zellikow, who wrote the report, is a winner of the Nobel Truth Prize. he is a man worthy of your trust. i chose him for his known loyalty to Israel. if there had been any Israel involvement, Comrade Zellikow would have been one of the first to know of it.

            CT i am convinced! but will this convince others?

            BT it will convince all but the weak-minded and the criminally insane. mercifully the State provides corrective institutions in which even these recalcitrants can learn the error of their ways through a process of repeated logical argument. we gradually disabuse them of the disinformation they have been fed, such as the entirely ludicrous “No-Rumsfeld” theory and other absurdities.

            CT wouldn’t it be easier to release one of the 82 confiscated CCTV security videos showing the cruise Rumsfield actually hitting the Pentagon?

            BT strong government does not give way to demands for evidence from the people. that would make them indisciplined and eventually weak and dependent. they must have faith in the State. we have technically qualified Commissars to examine evidence. in any case the videos will be released in 180 years time when they no longer have a potential impact on our security. people can watch them freely then.

            CT and if the corrective treatment fails?

            BT the state has an insatiable demand for the raw material inputs to our glorious revolutionary glue factories.

            CT i am only here to record the event, your serene majesty.

            BT pull it!

            chorus of cloned Netanyahus offstage the event is good for Israel!
            the event is good for Israel!
            BT Israel is America! America is Israel!!

            CT No Israel involvement.

            BT No American involvement.

            (both intone in synchrony:

            no involvement. no involvement. no involvement. blessed are the Kazzers, for they shall eat gefillte fish and shall speak the truth unto men alway.

            Silverstein’s ghost out! damned spots of nanothermite. pull them! pull it!

            curtain

          • Jonathon Blakeley August 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

            applause…

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos August 29, 2012 at 4:00 am #

      Among Goya’s Capricios there is one showing a very old woman, looking like Death warmed over, sitting in front of her boudoir mirror and resolutely applying make up to her face. The reflection in the mirror shows the viewer a skull. It is called Hasta la Muerte!
      You never give up either, jay. Putting lipstick on the pig and screeching: “Stalinists! You have no proof! Not the Mossad! Not in the US! Not on 9/11! Circular logic! Monkeys!”
      The reflection in the mirror shows hasbara.

      • etominusipi August 29, 2012 at 4:30 am #

        a most eloquent post, Ariadna.

  8. Jay Knott August 31, 2012 at 4:41 am #

    I don’t denounce anyone as a Stalinist. As I’ve explained before, my ‘Stalinism’ argument is an ANALOGY. It’s to do with the damaging effects of circular explanations on movements, where disagreement with the theory is explained by the theory itself, thus it is immune to refutation, even in principle. In contrast, my arguments can be corrected.

    For example, I was wrong to label the ‘Mossad did it’ line as ‘cui bono?’. The full truther argument about 9/11 benefitting Israel goes like this:
    1. Israel acquired land by building the ‘apartheid wall’
    2. Therefore, the apartheid wall was built in order to acquire land
    3. The apartheid wall was built after September 11th 2001
    4. Therefore, September 11th was an Israeli plot to justify building the wall

    That’s not just ‘cui bono?’. It’s ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ too.

    • Roy Bard August 31, 2012 at 5:07 am #

      I don’t think I’ve ever seen that argument before – I suspect it’s a classic Jay strawman.

      Here’s some arguments that are out there:

      “We forget that Israel was/is the major beneficiary of 9/11. How did Israel benefit ? Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, believed that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction and Israel wanted Iraq neutralised before it had a chance to use WMDs against Israel.

      Since beginning their occupation of Palestine, Israeli hawks have wanted to rid Palestine of the Palestinians.

      As long as Palestinians remained in the occupied territories, an Iraqi missile strike that would kill more Palestinians than Israelis was kept at bay.

      So long as Iraq possessed a capacity to develop WMDs, it would be impossible for Israel to eliminate the Palestinians. Thus, control of Iraq facilitated Israel’s ultimate desire to completely evict the Palestinians.

      How did 9/11 fit into the Iraq-Israel scenario? It provided the clarion call for the so-called war against terrorism. Without 9/11, the US had no excuse for invading Afghanistan.

      The battle against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was the precursor to the invasion of Iraq and the trumped up connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda provided the excuse for invading Iraq.

      Considering again the question “who benefited from 9/11?” it becomes perfectly clear that Israel alone had reason to plot and execute the disaster that hit The World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the four flights involved on that fateful day in 2001.”
      PAUL BALLES

      “The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

      “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
      Haaretz

      “The criminal network used the Zionist media to dub its war, the “War on Terror,” taking a page right out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s book, ‘Terrorism: How The West Can Win,’ published in 1986 (72). This would allow the criminal network to extend its occupations abroad indefinitely, since the enemy had never been clearly identified. With American troops conducting genocidal operations in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act being passed along with the creation of Homeland Security, granting immeasurable governing power to the Zionist administration, the involvement of Israel and America in the attacks silenced, and the next destruction of a nation being planned for Iraq, the criminal network slowly disbanded, eventually finding their way back to the Zionist entity, or fading into obscurity elsewhere like Michael Chertoff’s cousin, Benjamin Chertoff, who aided the criminal network by smearing the campaign for 9/11 truth (73). On a secondary, but still vitally important level, the Zionist criminal network, specifically the Mossad and the CIA, strengthened its hegemonic domination of the world even further by profiting enormously from reorganizing and taking full control of the amerceable heroin trade in Afghanistan and setting up business operations to take control of the neighboring oil fields in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan (74). ”
      Jonathan Azaziah

      So perhaps Jay you could give us some links that confirm that truthers are actually arguing that 9/11 was justification for building the wall?

      Also, if the wall isn’t another land grab mechanism, why didn’t they just build it on the Green Line?

      • Jay Knott September 8, 2012 at 3:27 am #

        Roy – “How did 9/11 fit into the Iraq-Israel scenario? It provided the clarion call for the so-called war against terrorism. Without 9/11, the US had no excuse for invading Afghanistan.”

        Invading Afghanistan did not benefit Israel. Your argument isn’t even cui bono?.

        “Also, if the wall isn’t another land grab mechanism, why didn’t they just build it on the Green Line?” – this is a Noam Chomsky logical fallacy. As I wrote, “He employs the logical fallacy known as a ‘false dichotomy’ to do this – pretending that the wall is either for security or for robbing the Palestinians.” – http://pacificaforum.org/mass/3

        There is no connection between September 11th and the apartheid wall. The routine association of the two, endlessly repeated on this site, is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It was Andrew Mathis who first pointed this out – http://tinyurl.com/9vujvlc

        But… he’s officially a ‘Zionist’. In the Stalinist style of reasoning common on this site, this invalidates his use of formal logic.

        I give Chomsky a hard time when he makes these errors, because he really understands logic – it’s how he worked out that language is innate. I guess I should be more tolerant on this site, and avoid references to ‘monkeys’.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 8, 2012 at 5:15 am #

          I am disappointed. You let me down, jay. I expected a bit of sparkle and for once something fresh. I didn’t call on you to perform like a trained seal: balance ball on the nose, raise “Stalinist” banner with your flipper, quick dive to the bottom of the pool, fetch the “logic” pebble.
          You “give Chomsky a hard time”? Does the old zionist even know you exist? Is he losing lost of sleep over your “hard time”?
          Language is not innate. The CAPACITY for learning it is. Feral children never speak. Chomsky didn’t “work it out” by logic unless you mean that in the general sense in which we employ logic even when we make tea. There is inherent logic in the grammars of all languages, but that is another issue. For someone who trots out that name all the time you have a rather crude grasp of his work.
          The only solace I derive from your post, for which I feel responsible, is that not a single one of the “monkeys” is able to do a proper caricature of you–you do it best every time.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 8, 2012 at 5:21 am #

          “invading Afghanistan did not benefit Israel”
          No?
          http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/214/print

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 8, 2012 at 5:31 am #

          No interest in Afghanistan? Just how big does Eretz Israel plan to be?
          Talk of the “lost tribes” being Pashtun is as credible as your BBC theory of 9/11 but it shows… “interest” doesn;t it?

          http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesAfghanistan.html

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos September 8, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

          Language, the instrument of communication, like any other instrument, inevitably changes the material it works upon, namely perceived reality.
          It organizes it, groups, edits, deletes and labels it.
          The more limited the language the more circumscribed the perceived reality. Despite various obfuscations, your language shows an almost primitive (one could say reptilian brain-like) representation:
          self – non-self; food – not food; monkeys – betters.
          This is an (if not THE) essential hallmark of zionist perception and discourse: GOOD FOR THE JEWS (Israel) — NOT GOOD for them.
          Fully or partially aware of this, you dissimulate by misdirection, talking about “complexity” versus your very own “binary” thinking, which you attribute to the others.
          The “monkeys,” you say, don’t see the complexity you see from the top where you imagine yourself perched.
          Language, however, betrays you: instead of cloaking your “binary” gestalt in “complexity” it leaves it bare.

  9. etominusipi August 31, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    i hope Jay concedes that some goyim, (despite the crippling disadvantages of a non-Talmudic education) have developed at least a rudimentary understanding the meaning and appropriate employment of useful concepts like circular reasoning, cui bono and post hoc ergo propter hoc. in dealing with historical events we cannot rely on syllogisms alone. a brief argument must be a summary of propositions and inductive hypotheses for which the detailed evidence has been marshalled elsewhere. the mere form of an argument in this sphere does not suffice to determine its truth conditions.

    the following transition between two instantiations of the same Jay schema is meant simply as an illustration, and does not constitute a full historical examination. however i am sure other deLiberation commenters can flesh out 1b with interesting facts (e.g. the blackmail of President Wilson by Samuel Untermeyer and of British PM Lloyd George by Basil Zaharoff)

    i have used Jay’s schema and then made two substitutions. the formal side of this will be easily grasped by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of symbolic logic.

    J 1 (non-syllogistic schema of inductive reasoning)

    1 A achieved B via C
    2 therefore C was done to achieve B
    3 C was done after event E
    4 therefore event E was a plot by A to achieve B

    clearly the devil is in the detail:

    J 1a (‘straw man’)

    1. Israel acquired land by building the ‘apartheid wall’
    2. Therefore, the apartheid wall was built in order to acquire land
    3. The apartheid wall was built after September 11th 2001
    4. Therefore, September 11th was an Israeli plot to justify building the wall

    Jay 1b (fruitful hypothesis directing historical investigation).

    1. Israel acquired land by the naqba (murder and expulsion of Palestinians)
    2. Therefore the naqba was undertaken in order to acquire land
    3. The naqba occurred after the Balfour Declaration
    4. Therefore the Balfour Declaration was an Israeli plot to justify the naqba.

    it still appears to me that Jay, for all his intelligence and wit, chooses the fallacious trajectory of arguing from predetermined conclusion (no Israel involvement), rather than looking for facts and letting them lead him where they may.

    i would appreciate it if, for the historical record, Jay would indicate for us how his thinking might alter if he were presented with convincing evidence that Israel was indeed involved in the 911 massacre.

    (i am happy to allow that it is a hypothetical question – Jay may call it a counterfactual question, but surely nevertheless should be able to sketch a reasonable answer, unless G_d forbid, he regards Israeli involvement as logically impossible)

    i will judge the honesty of Jay’s intentions by the sincerity of his answer. if he does not answer at all, or if he simply attempts the trick of turning the question back on the questioner, or beginning an endless debate about this in order to sidetrack the discussion, then i will become more entrenched in my hypothesis that he is a hasbarat, albeit a polite, engaging and well-educated one.

    if others think this unfair, i am willing to retract the request.

  10. Ariadna Theokopoulos August 31, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    I have occasionally been disappointed in Roy’s and eto’s posts (and always said so forthrightly as I am wont to do) but never more than now, reading their responses to jay.
    Sure, I have had my disagreements with jay over time but I have always recognized that they arose from our different personalities and aesthetic inclinations: I am a high technology buff who thinks nuclear missiles are, to borrow back a phrase I lent to Paul once, “fiercely beautiful.” Jay on the other hand is a bohemian artist in awe of hand-made craft, who thinks there is nothing that a carving or box-cutting knife cannot accomplish. I disagree with him but I understand him.
    Roy’s statement “I don’t think I’ve ever seen that argument before – I suspect it’s a classic Jay strawman.” says far more about Roy than about Jay.
    It says that Roy would be equally incapable of understanding, for example, that it does not matter that Ahmadinejad did not say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. What matters is that for narrative consistency he should have said it, which is just as good as having said it. I would also say to Roy that the existence of syrens is not proved by someone having ever seen one but by someone having imagined them, but I’d be wasting my breath because Roy is clearly no logician, much less a philosopher. Roy also seems to be ignorant of the lesson taught by all those books with fake Holocaust memories, namely that emotional truth is factual truth.

  11. Ariadna Theokopoulos August 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    As for eto, his so-called arguments are childish and — sorry to be blunt — ignorant..
    By saying that jay
    “chooses the fallacious trajectory of arguing from predetermined conclusion (no Israel involvement), rather than looking for facts and letting them lead him where they may.”
    eto is saying that human minds can operate without the aid of basic assumptions/axioms.
    Imagine a world in which you cannot count, have no certainty that 2 + 2 = 4, regard every sunrise as an aleatory, not likely to be soon repeated event, and don’t even know to which tribe you belong because you don’t even have the concept of ‘tribe.” Horrible exercise of imagination.
    ‘No Israeli involvement’ is such an axiom, although eto’s mind is incapable of wrapping itself around it.

    • etominusipi August 31, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

      Ariadna, i cannot speak for Roy, but your penetrating analysis is allowing me to begin to see the error of my ways through certain chinks in the curtain of my former, unjustified, certainty. i’m not sure i fully grasp what you are saying, as such a bold approach to truth is something i have only recently begun to see as a viable methodology.

      but i don’t want to appear smug. i like the fact that you are inclusive enough to see your hi-tech view and Jay’s more Gandhian perspective as just two ends of a rather long spectrum of possibilities – just as all wavelengths correspond to light, even though most of that ‘light’ is invisible to us , so it must be that all views of 911 are equally true (or untrue) even though most of them are immune to the laws of evidentiality and the laws of physics.

      as you say so aptly, it is the emotion that matters. with mythopoeic events, logic and the hypothetico-deductive method are not merely irrelevant but positively misleading – just as it would be wrong to interpret the sacrament of the eucharist via a forensic study of bread and wine. the chemical composition is irrelevant, though the modern materialistic mind-set makes this truth difficult for people to see any more.

      i will risk irritating readers with one more footnote. Dr Eugene Nagelstein, of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Department of Historical Epistemology has recently come up with a concept of of Transtemporal Validation. i won’t digress to try and explain it here, but applied to 911 it would imply that Jay’s Boxcutter version is relatively more valid than a hi-tech one, because if we conceive of the event as occurring at a random moment of historical time, it is simply more probable, in the sense of the statistical thermodynamics of the historical process.

      say, for example, that 911 had occurred in the year 1066, and been used as a pretext for the Norman invasion of England. it would be absurd to claim that the twin towers had been brought down by nanothermite or mini-nukes, because at that epoch these technologies simply did not exist!!!

      on the other hand, even at that early epoch, boxcutters, or a kind of dagger with similar dimensions, could easily have been the crime weapon of choice with which to hijack the jets and smash them into the twin towers.

      likewise there could have been no involvement of Israel, since at that time Eretz Israel was a mere twinkle in the eye of Maimonedes’ great-great-great-grandmother, and most Ashkenazim had not yet migrated out of the Khazarian heartlands. thus Jay’s Boxcutter is much more likely, by the anthropic principle.

      i feel i have not explained this very well, but i cannot write down the relevant quantum-theoretical equations using the wordpress software.

      as Dr Nagelstein wittily remarked: the Truth is a very big tent, but the toilets remain outside. at the SPLC, incidentally – for reasons of ritual purity rather than mere hygiene – they have four types of toilet, rather than the more usual two, labelled, respectively L, G, PN and OG. the meaning of these mysterious kabbalistic letters are revealed in a missing verse* of the Basbylonian Talmud: ladies, gents, poor niggas, and other goyim, respectively.

      *see Prof Yuri Bloch’s recent book the suppressed satanic verses of the southern poverty edition of the babylonian talmud Adelson Press, Las Vegas.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos August 31, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

        To say that I am gratified to see how much I have helped you to find your way towards a higher truth would not be saying half of what I feel. I cannot describe –not without the risk of being misunderstood — the frisson coursing through me as I watch, as it were, the vibrating cilia of your comprehension stand erect, filled with new awareness.
        Suffice it to say that I would like to have your permission to republish some of your posts (with due credit to you and deLib) as exemplars of an incipient understanding of logic beyond logic.

  12. pgg804 August 31, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    On a related issue, “France Suspects Israel Murdered Arafat – Investigation Launched”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9504492/Yasser-Arafat-murder-investigation-launched.html

    Israel claims Eichmann did it.

    Swiss also say Israelis killed Arafat:
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-institute-finds-polonium-arafats-effects-223816830.html

    ADL say Swiss stole billions more than previously thought from Ann Frank, et al. New lawsuits to be announced.

Leave a Reply