Undermining rationality

You think that some women and children in sand huts in Pakistan worked closely with Saddam Hussein and the Saudi government to carry out 9/11?

this is hilarious because it reads like someone trying to be ironic when I know you're not trying to be. anyways, ya, it is a fact and has nothing to do with value judgements.

>yet so called "rational" people disagree with him.
no rational person disagrees with the facts he posted, they disapprove of him desperately trying to play the innocent victim card.

youtube.com/watch?v=CEmSwJTqpgY

Clock Kid got a good point...

...and the answer to OP's question is "tribalism"

tribalism also explains why people believed him unquestionably.

youtube.com/watch?v=rFvB1I7uMGg

This really makes me think

>tribalism also explains why people believed him unquestionably.

Well, duh...

So let's ask some questions...

Are there any Muslims who died as a result of the US response to the 9-11 attack who did not participate in the original attack?

Did that number total 2 million?

Now if you are going to claim that simply being a Muslim makes a person an accessory to the 9-11 attack, well - that's like just your opinion, man...

I think he's talking about the invasion of Iraq, not only in response to the attacks by Afghanistan but also in response to the fact that they didn't even have WMDs.

>Being a soldier for Saddam qualifies as "innocent"
topkayk

religious people perpetuate religion. no religious people, no religion. and some religions are rooted in texts that encourage its expansion by all means including violence.
cspipublishing.com/statistical/pdf/Statistical_Islam.pdf

of course this isn't sufficient to claim they are accessories to the attack as they did not have direct involvement.

iraq had very little to no culpability in 911, the saudis however are another story.

>8353162
>>Being a soldier for Saddam qualifies as "innocent"

Innocent of the 9-11 attack, sure.

Problem is that Clock Kid hasn't defined his terms very well and anons here are responding to the terms they've made up and attributed to Clock Kid.

>People see thing on news or news site.
>They believe it without question and repost it all over the net as a source that supports their arguments.
>People who are vehemently opposed to arguments not only go so far as to cast doubt on supporters of the argument but also go on to fabricate theories about a conspiracy by the news in order to perpetuate this argument.

Tell me user, which group is represented by irrational tribalists?

This is a trick question. In fact if you look at any stubborn ideological group on the internet you will find that in some instances they find themselves on one side of this fence and in others on the other side of this fence. This leads us to conclude that either (or even a combination of):
>Both groups are tribalists and engage in irrational thought
or
>Tribalism and irrational thought don't exist as dispositions inherent to an individual or group but rather as a form of thought that one may or may not engage in.
or
>Both groups are composed of a mixed population of rationalists, irrationalists, tribalists, and nontribalists.

At any rate, by demonizing the other group in a way that you can also be easily attacked you are undermining your own position. Don't do that.

>iraq had very little to no culpability in 911
"in 911" being the keyword here. Saddam goons were far from innocent.

Say what you will about graphic barbaric war crimes but those guys on the left have some fucking amazing cinematography.

>by demonizing the other group
you mean like Islamic texts do? islam is inherently divisive. and it's important the west comes to realize that.
cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/AmtTxtDevotedKafir.html

we cannot unite as a species unless there is tremendous reform to islam or the religion is put in the dustbin of history along with the rest where they belong.

>that fucking slaughterhouse video with spotless editing
I miss the old "shitty VHS tape" terrorists. The amount of care they put in this is really scary.

>"in 911" being the keyword here. Saddam goons were far from innocent.

Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?

Anyone who is muslim is not innocent unless they are an apostate.

Maybe they should have publicly condemned the radical acts instead of being complicit.

RIP the innocent nazis too

Yeah man, after all haven't we all been part of a murderous death squad, innit?

Gah, could you not have at least turned this into a more generic scenario to take the politics out of it? I mean this *could* have been a Veeky Forums thread - even if, it'd just be psychology.

>Nation X, is attacked by independent operators associated with Nation Y, and attacks Nation Z in a devastating response. Someone from nation X calls this hypocrisy and his fellow nationals jump all over him.

Was that so hard?

See, everyone from Nation X gets a sudden rush of catecholamines upon learning of the attack, quickly starts suffering from major withdrawals with no outlet, and thus begin looking at their leadership to reflect their rage and do something in response.

But said leadership doesn't consider the actual nation the attackers are associated with an enemy, has a lot invested in them, but does have another, nearby and similarly themed nation, that's been on their hitlist for a long time and is overdue for a cleanup, so they go after said Nation Z, in order to look like they are doing something. Two birds with one stone - it's win-win.

Thus, the general populous gets a rush of Adrenaline, Dopamine, Serotonin, reinforcing their tribal-family induced Oxytocin and Vasopressin cycles, making them feel all puffed up about doing a good job at getting proper vengeance for the travesty set upon their peoples.

Then this one citizen comes along and tells them they are wrong for feeling this way, threatening to start the withdrawal cycle all over again.

So of course they jump all over him.

SCIENCE!
>okay, not really... But at least TRY to obscure your /pol/ threads.

>Yeah man, after all haven't we all been part of a murderous death squad, innit?

Is it your claim that every Iraqi soldier under Sadaam was part of a murderous death squad?

Indeed, the advent of cheap high res cameras and Adobe Premiere coupled with the Internet have doomed us all.

>What exactly about this tweet makes humans react irrationally?

Cognitive dissonance. Did you know when the idea that doctors should wash their hands before surgery was proposed doctors EVERYWHERE very loudly claimed it was stupid. Even though there was scientific evidence, and they already knew about germ theory, they didn't want to admit the fact that they had been accidentally been causing infections with their unwashed hands.

NOW TAKE THIS SHIT BACK TO /pol/ AND PRUNE THIS THREAD!!!

It's almost as if you didn't read my post. I'm Mesoamerican, my people suffered greatly at the hands of Christianity and even now there are large social gaps created solely to perpetuate the Christian agenda. Perhaps you don't see it in your community or perhaps it isn't widespread in your country but are you saying that Christianity as a whole has no problems anywhere in the world (keep in mind that many of these Islamic groups have had contact with different Christian communities that perhaps function differently from what you are familiar with)? I think there is little to gain from placing the entire blame on your opponent as a whole instead of focusing on the specific problems that affect both of you and other groups as well.

We cannot unite as a species if we are incapable of placing faith or trust in one another.

>We cannot unite as a species if we are incapable of placing faith or trust in one another.

Guess we're fucked, then.

>but are you saying that Christianity as a whole has no problems anywhere in the world
no, can't say i even believe that.

>I think there is little to gain from placing the entire blame on your opponent as a whole instead of focusing on the specific problems that affect both of you and other groups as well.
i never said the west was innocent. i wouldn't claim that, i am however pointing out a specific problem with islam.

>We cannot unite as a species if we are incapable of placing faith or trust in one another.
faith is belief without evidence, very dangerous. trust should be earned. as much as i do want the species to be united it shouldn't be at the cost of my livelihood or that of anyone else. you as a mesoamerican should know this of all people. gotta be careful who you open your doors to.

>innocent muslim
>fact
There's no innocent muslim.

>TheAuthoritarians.pdf

>You think that some women and children in sand huts in Pakistan worked closely with Saddam Hussein and the Saudi government to carry out 9/11?
So you think they were purposely executed by the US government under pretense of guilt for 9/11?

Of all the crazy conspiracy theories I've heard about 9/11, that takes the cake.

The Iraq invasion and general "war on terror" was not a response to or retribution for 9/11, it was just something enabled by a shift of popular attitude toward military interventionism. 9/11 woke Americans up to the fact that the world isn't going to leave them alone just because they leave it alone.

Afghanistan, which has pretty much always been a lawless mess, was made into an international training camp for terrorists by radical islamists. A people that can't keep order well enough to prevent attacks being prepared and launched at great military powers are inevitably going to find themselves having order imposed on them by whatever means are necessary.

The wild areas of rural Pakistan suffer similar lawlessness and international terrorist use to Afghanistan.

Iraq was an aggressive military power led by a dictator who defied the world order, sometimes acted without apparent thought for consequences, and sought to improve his means of doing so. There may not have been any complete WMDs, but anyone who tells you Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear weapon program is ignorant or lying. Search on "Saddam Hussein" and "calutrons". Furthermore, he was posing as if he was on the brink of getting them, giving international observers the runaround, and there was no fucking way to know what a pathetic condition his

The 9/11 attack, a coordinated simultaneous terrorist strike out of the blue against the WTC, Pentagon, and White House, raised the spectre of an equally unheralded and abrupt nuclear strike. The potentiality had to be dealt with.

Whoops, didn't finish my sentence:
>Furthermore, he was posing as if he was on the brink of getting them, giving international observers the runaround, and there was no fucking way to know what a pathetic condition his
...WMD program was in without invading and searching the country unimpeded.

>Iraq was an aggressive military power led by a dictator who defied the world order, sometimes acted without apparent thought for consequences, and sought to improve his means of doing so. There may not have been any complete WMDs, but anyone who tells you Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear weapon program is ignorant or lying. Search on "Saddam Hussein" and "calutrons". Furthermore, he was posing as if he was on the brink of getting them, giving international observers the runaround, and there was no fucking way to know what a pathetic condition his WMD program was in without invading and searching the country unimpeded.

Completely false.

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=276416

Not Veeky Forums

>Completely false.
>Now go read some opinions on another internet forum, which confirms some of what I just called "completely false" and doesn't convincingly refute any of the rest.

Two million is off by an order of magnitude.

>Now go read some opinions on another internet forum, which confirms some of what I just called "completely false" and doesn't convincingly refute any of the rest.

>All known indigenous facilities capable of producing uranium compounds useful for fuel fabrication and for isotopic enrichment were destroyed during the Gulf War; IAEA inspected and completed the destruction of facilities; IAEA monitored the sites as part of their OMV activities.

>Powell claimed the aluminum tubes were for use in a centrifugal enrichment plant, not a preparative mass spectrometer. Centrifugation and electromagnetic separation are completly different technologies.

>After the occupation, the aluminum tubes turned up in rocket manufacturing facilities.

>Contrary to Rummy's bullshit, a uranium enrichment facility is a very large, very power hungry beast.

>Nobody uses Calutrons anymore. They're so....World War II.

>There was a goodbook about Hussein's bomb project, by an Iraqi scientist..I think it was called Saddam's Bomb Maker . Anyway, I recall hat Saddam could not afford a gaseous diffusion-type enrichment plant (these things are huge)! He went the calutron route because they were small and affordable.

>Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda

>Hamza was a fraud.

>Khidhir Hamza, who had once worked in Iraq's nuclear program and whose claims that Iraq had continued a massive bomb program in the 1990s are now largely discredited, gave United Nations nuclear inspectors what appeared to be explosive documents about Iraq's program.

>But the scientists were troubled by one minor matter: Some of the technical descriptions used terms that would be used only by an Iranian. They determined that the original copy had been written in Farsi by an Iranian scientist and then translated into Arabic.

>The Iraq invasion and general "war on terror" was not a response to or retribution for 9/11, it was just something enabled by a shift of popular attitude toward military interventionism. 9/11 woke Americans up to the fact that the world isn't going to leave them alone just because they leave it alone.

>Afghanistan, which has pretty much always been a lawless mess, was made into an international training camp for terrorists by radical islamists. A people that can't keep order well enough to prevent attacks being prepared and launched at great military powers are inevitably going to find themselves having order imposed on them by whatever means are necessary.

>The wild areas of rural Pakistan suffer similar lawlessness and international terrorist use to Afghanistan.

You give these fucks endless money, guns and lists of people to kill, exhort them to murder everyone they can get their hands on, and then act all shocked and indignant when they eventually turn on you.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/american-commandos-forced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/

Esimates give a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians dead. That's the Iraq war by the way. Not Afghanistan or Syria or Kuwait. Also not included is the cost of destabilising the region which gave rise to groups like ISIS and bombing Iraq back into the third world.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Iraq was invaded under the premise of having WMDs which turned out they didn't, later the CIA claimed therr wasnt even solid evidence of it.

>all that greentext
>so many opinions
>still confirming some parts with no convincing refutation of others

>Iraq was invaded under the premise of having WMDs which turned out they didn't
Iraq was invaded due to the concern of potentially having a near-mature WMD program. If you wait until someone definitely has WMDs, then it's too fucking late to invade them, isn't it?

And the invasion was justified by the violation of the terms of ceasefire, following their previous war of aggression, particularly interference with observers there to make sure Saddam wasn't building any WMDs.

Seriously, this is like the people bitching when some stupid criminal gets himself killed not complying with orders when a cop's holding a gun on him.

And no, the "innocent civilians" don't get a free pass for being the kind of people who let someone like that be their leader, to such an extent that a sane person regards collateral damage in the course of removing him as murder.

Iraqis are fuck-ups, like most of the Muslim world, that believe crazy things and lack the civic virtue to prosper in the modern world, and only matter to the world because they happened to be sitting on oil. Setting them up with a provisional democracy was as much as they deserved. A chance to not fuck up, to show whether they are capable of being civilized men in the modern world, to be judged fairly by their actions, and to deliver to themselves the ultimate outcome they deserve.

>Afghanistan, which has pretty much always been a lawless mess, was made into an international training camp for terrorists by radical islamists.
Except the group of radical islamists was directly armed, trained and funded by American tax money when they wanted to drive away the Russians. When they realised how much the American government intervened in the (muslim) world they wanted to give out a signal and blew up some buildings.

If anything 9/11 should have been a wake-up call for Americans that they should leave the world alone if they don't want shit to get out of control.

>Setting them up with a provisional democracy was as much as they deserved. A chance to not fuck up, to show whether they are capable of being civilized men in the modern world, to be judged fairly by their actions, and to deliver to themselves the ultimate outcome they deserve.
You can't install democracy in a country that has no national cohesion and no individual decision power. A country like Iraq is made up of several regionalised tribes and as a result a 'democracy' in this setting means that every party is a coalition of regional tribes and that the biggest coalition gets to rule over all the other tribes, which in turn don't really respect the sitting government.
You can see this for example in the army, where soldiers refused to defend certain locations against IS because they didn't want to die for 'their' country.

also the framing of a statement frequently causes us to reason about it in the wrong context. its not my fault if im given the wrong context and reach an incorrect conclusion. people are just manipulative. life lesson: ignore what people say and only look at the facts.

>"""""""""innocent""""""""" americans

another retard reported

I think he means you can force yourself to be rational when your emotional response isn't strong enough.

Spoken like a true indoctrinated American. Based on 'facts' only concidered true by Americans.

>Americans up to the fact that the world isn't going to leave them alone just because they leave it alone
This has to be a contender for most deluded geopolitical opinion ive ever encountered

Either that or this is some top tier bait

Notice how "innocent" and "something they didn't do" are being applied to the Muslims and not the Americans.

you're looking too much into it, americans in those towers were obviously innocent, while some muslim factions were at open war with the US when they invaded irak/afghanistan, but a large part of the casualties were just citizens and their country as a whole was attacked on false grounds. So yeah, innocent muslims attacked for something they didn't do.

It's a bit like you said innocent muslim referring to syria citizens, to distinguish them from ISIS.

>this is what Americans actually believe

>potentially having a near-mature WMD program
>potentially
The following is from the Iraq Resolution, the official US justification for declaring war:
>a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction
Importantly, eventually Hussein was condemned to death by the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal based on one case, the 1982 Dujail Massacre. So he was never even convicted of using WMD's, and no evidence was found of their development either. You can twist and turn history all you want, trying to rationalize the invasion, but that doesn't change reality: The Iraq invasion was unjust, and in the end it was disastrous for the region. The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva.

>"innocent civilians" don't get a free pass
That's despicable. You cannot blame an oppressed population for their own oppression. By that reasoning any invasion of any country is just, because people shouldn't let themselves be oppressed. By extension then the 9/11 attacks are just.

>The Iraq invasion and general "war on terror" was not a response to or retribution for 9/11
Factually misleading and historically false at worst. The 9/11 attack are literally cited in the Iraq Resolution as a justification for war. So yes, it was in part a response to 9/11. Also, this understates the impact 9/11 had on the public's willingness to go to war and the effect that would have on expediting that process (almost guaranteeing it). Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11, but if/when that would happen if 9/11 didn't occur is anyone's guess. The bottom line, despite other various reasons for going to war, is that 9/11 directly influenced the decision to invade Iraq.

>So you think they were purposely executed by the US government under pretense of guilt for 9/11?
Following earlier statement, it follows that the deaths of innocent Iraqis is in part due to 9/11, something they had no part in. Also, fuck off with the "purposely executed" nonsense, as if anyone is implying soldiers went around cutting throats of innocent individuals. If you drop bombs on a populated city, innocent people are going to die -- the US government knows this and they still did it; they're responsible for those deaths.

>CPUs and soldering them...

This is a joke, right? I mean, it's on comedy central so it must be a joke.