12 Oct 2002 - Police 'had role' in Indonesia's Bali bombings

[DeFecToR]

Damn, these conspiracy theorists ARE EVERYWHERE!!!!!!

http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/police-had-role-in-bali-bla sts.html

[aggle-rithm]

[DeFecToR]

[TimmyG]

its unbelieveable just how many terrorist groups seem to be controlled by intelligence agencies..

i've recently been doing a bit of looking up on the IRA/kevin fulton etc... i kind of wanted to believe that they were just a bog-standard/isolated terrorist group. but no! more tax payers money going into killing innocent people it seems!

[DeFecToR]

[DeFecToR]

I notice how you critic types are avoiding this like the plague.

[DeFecToR]

Bumpty bump bump.

Come on for god sake. You guys can do better than "he's had strokes".

[Anti-sophist]

Why do I even care? In what kind of bizzarro universe is evidence of some minor conspiracy in Bali change anything that happened on 9/11?

Maybe we are avoiding it because it's a non-sequitor.

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

I take it 'Holy *' means that was the most insightful thing you've read on this board, ever, and are now convinced.

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

Ad hominem. Another hallmark of logical and rational thought. Anything else for me, or are we done here, so I can go back to letting you believe this nonsense is even mildly relevant.

[pepik]

I was reading an article about Iraq. The Shiites were saying they never do revenge attacks on Sunnis after car bombings, the Sunnis were just faking the attacks so they would have an excuse for more bombings. Meanwhile the Sunnis said they never bombed anybody, the Shiites were bombing themselves so they would have an excuse to attack the Sunnis.

So apparently there is no civil war in Iraq, just two sides busily attacking themselves.

Either than or maybe the fact that someone somewhere says something is a conspiracy doesn't really mean much.

[Anti-sophist]

Well, it's exactly like the new loose change video that's coming out. They are going to devote huge sections of it proving OTHER conspiracies have existed. They honestly believe that if they can prove OTHER conspiracy, that some how changes the events of 9/11. Somehow, the missing element in a proof of 9/11 conspiracy, is the suggestion that other conspiracies have happened.

It's the same stupid fallacy as "No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, therefore they didn't". Nothing about previous collapses, or previous conspiracies, changes anything that happened on 9/11.

This is all an important point, though, with CTers... it's not just about getting the facts right... it's also making sure the logic that gets you from facts to conclusions is sound. They are quite good are basing conclusions on actual facts, but utterly terrible logic.

[DeFecToR]

Durrr...

They blaimed the Bali bombing on Al Qaeda.

Still sure it isn't relevant?

Funny isnt it that when there is something posted here that contradicts your ridiculous stance you dismiss it as irrevelant.

Typical critic rubbish. Hang your heads apologists so that the victims souls may ready their axes.

[Anti-sophist]

The fact you think you are fighting for the victims by desecrating their memory every day is slightly more humorous than your belief that there is an actual, useful, and meaningful piece of evidence to be found in the topic of this thread.

I think I've said enough to convince any random passer-by that this isn't worth considering, and you clearly are well beyond the point of rational thought, so I've completed all that needs done, in this thread.

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

Those who don't draw conclusions first, and ignore evidence that doesn't support their conclusions, have seen it. You are too busy looking for evidence to support your conclusion, to see the evidence against it.

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

Have you not been paying attention to the PNAC conversation? I've only been accusing you of using circular logic for 15 posts.

When you presuppose a conspiracy, you "read into" the PNAC sentence what you want to read. You read things that aren't there. You are "reading between the lines" based upon your preconceived notions of conspiracy. You are _looking_ for evidence of a conclusions you've already formed. It's a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

If you presuppose a conspiracy, it's _very_easy_ to find it, anywhere you look. In formal logic, if you presuppose a notion, you can (obviously) always prove it to be true.

[DeFecToR]

[DeFecToR]

He he. Just noticed the sly change of subject. Very swish.

So, are you apologists going to rubbish the deaths of over 200 people again?

[Anti-sophist]

No one is impugning the death of 200 people. We are all sitting around scratching our head and what kind of model of proof allows for this story, in any way, to be connected to 9/11 as support of any logical position.

It just doesn't make any sense. I know you think everyone is reading this and going "oh no! I can't respond! He's figured it out!". In reality, we are thinking... "This is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the events of 9/11".

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

[DeFecToR]

[quote="Anti-sophist"]

[Anti-sophist]

Unfortunately, you, as a CTer, took the usual fallacy of false dichotomy (look it up) and forced me to respond.

You took the critics "lack of response" as evidence of the validity of your argument, completely ignoring the the other option: that it wasn't even worth talking about, because it was so far afield.

I jumped in merely to correct your own statement and point out that what you are claiming does not necessarily follow from the facts. In other words, there are more reasons than "OMG THE EVIDENCE IS SO GOOD!" for critics not responding to your off-topic ramblings that you can connect through circular logic and paranoia, in place of hard evidence.

Had you not brought up our "silence" as "proof", I wouldn't be here. I am merely responding to your fallacious logic.

[aggle-rithm]

[DeFecToR]

[Anti-sophist]

If you aren't saying that, then I reiterate, why are we talking about this? The silliness of this conversation has grown tiresome. You've said nothing of value.