latest false flag attack?

juan juan.g71 at
Tue Sep 25 14:29:00 PDT 2018

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:48:44 -0700
Mirimir <mirimir at> wrote:

> Hey, we all get stuck in being right, at times. But I believe that my
> opinions are generally not dogmatic, and that I'm open to evidence and
> argument. And I do revise opinions when convinced by evidence and/or
> argument. Also, I generally don't profess opinions when unqualified.

	for reference : dogma 

	"an official system of principles or tenets "
	"a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:"

	I'd argue that people promoting *official* views are dogmatic by definition. Like the people in this thread parroting official propaganda....or you resorting to official Tor talking points at times =)

> For example, the recent paper Nasr, Bahramali and Houmansadr (2018)
> DeepCorr: Strong Flow Correlation Attacks on Tor Using Deep Learning
> <> does decrease my confidence in
> Tor and VPN chains. But in my opinion, that's still the best existing
> approach for online anonymity. Except maybe for chained botnet proxies,
> but that's too morally iffy.

	Ah some deep bullshit, deep hype 'AI', which is all the rage now =) 

	But consider this : that neural network stuff isn't exactly new. So it's quite possible that some bag of shit at the NSA thought about using it, for, uh, pattern recognition of traffic. And it's quite possible that they've been doing that for a while...

> So hey, please do call me out if I'm being dogmatic :)

	Well, for instance, your views regarding owners of 'hidden' services being caught beacuse of their own mistakes, BECAUSE the fucking state says so seem rather dogmatic. You are literally just repeating the *official* explanation.

	But anyway I don't think that calling people dogmatic adds much to the discussion because dogmatic in a more coloquial sense just means stubborn and arguing does require does degree of stubborness.

> > 	Why on fucking earth should I 'accept' the 'perspective' of the likes of tazer, donald and agent fairbrother, who are not only promoting official propaganda, but pretending THEY are right?
> I'm not arguing that you ought to accept them. Just that it might be
> useful to consider them, to see if there's anything sensible in them.

	Oh of course. I try to do that at least...

> > 	Do you really fail to see how ridiculous it is to point out that somebody is stubborn....while you STUBBORNLY have a different 'view' yourself? 
> If I did, I suppose that it would be. But even though I may at times be
> dogmatic and stubborn, it's still useful to raise the issue.

> Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants
> seem to focus on winning. Rather than on revising their opinions, in
> light of evidence and argument. 

	Well those two things, plus this one...

	"we all get stuck in being right" 

	...are closely related as far as I can see. The whole point of arguing is to find the truth. If the people arguing were not "stuck in being right" then they wouldn't be arguing. You won't be 'right' or find the truth unless that's what you want to do. 

	And so, "focusing on winning" is just as relevant. You argue to prove that what you say is true or correct - that is, win the argument.. If you 'lose', then it's the other guy the one who found the correct answer. But either way, the objective is to 'win'.

> And rudeness makes it worse, because
> people tend to get triggered.

	It's not necessarily rudeness what 'triggers' people. For instance, the way james 'politely' repeats the same bullshit over and over does annoy me after a while. And yet he's not being technically rude. Just fuckingly dishonest...

> Yes, I looked at all the pictures. And in my opinion, it's really hard
> to tell exactly what's happening.

	At least it's clear that in the time span between the two frames I showed the building isn't "toppling like a tree". 

	Here is the inkscape drawing I used for my pictures. You can check that the images come from the video, you can tweak my tracking, etc.

> Also, as I've said, I don't really care. I strongly suspect that the US
> government was somehow actively involved. Or at least, that it was a
> rogue operation, involving such (maybe not really former) CIA assets as
> Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Ladin and his associates. That is, it
> was fundamentally a false-flag attack.

	Fair enough. 

> And if that's the case, it doesn't really matter what mix of planes,
> missiles and demolition charges ended up doing the damage. That's rather
> a distraction. What's interesting is who did it, and why.

	That's true as well. But the whole point of this discussion is to show that the official story is false and so other explanations are needed. 

	If people believe the official story, i.e. dogma, that obviously excludes the possibility of the attacks being an inside job...

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list