Friday, October 20, 2006

Amazon's Top "Non-Fiction" Reviewer Hails Tarpley

Which of course raises the question why he's reviewing a work of fiction like Synthetic Terror. If you've got a couple of minutes this afternoon/evening, look at Robert D. Steele's review and click on the "No" button under "Was this review helpful to you?" This shows one of the problems with Amazon's "rate the reviewers" feature; that a 9-11 retard like this guy can be a top 100 reviewer shows something's terribly wrong.

31 Comments:

At 20 October, 2006 15:06, Blogger shawn said...

Someone ordered two copies of that crap at our store.

I put the Popular Mechanics book on the top of his pile. Just for kicks.

 
At 20 October, 2006 15:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steele:

I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it.

How can anyone write about themselves that way without a hint of embarrassment? I think a good rule of thumb is that if you have to tell someone your IQ it's probably because you're trying to make up for something really stupid you're about say.

I'd tell him to go screw himself but it looks like it would just be redundant.

 
At 20 October, 2006 15:42, Blogger shawn said...

I've looked up the man and he's a proponent of open intelligence, which makes his advocacy of this nonsense book make at least a little sense.

I think a good rule of thumb is that if you have to tell someone your IQ it's probably because you're trying to make up for something really stupid you're about say.


Bingo.

This shows one of the problems with Amazon's "rate the reviewers" feature

All's you have to do is write lots of lengthy reviews (especially for bestselling books). Hell, if I wrote an in-depth review for every nonfiction work I read I'd easily make top ten.

 
At 20 October, 2006 15:49, Blogger shawn said...

From his review:

(e.g. the bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor)

Uh, Mr. Steele you quite obviously aren't well-read in history. The USS Maine wasn't bombed. It either hit a mine or blew up from the boiler. I think the second theory is more likely, but neither links to America faking a Spanish attack.

 
At 20 October, 2006 16:22, Blogger Andrew said...

pathetic, Pat... you're really losing it

a "9-11 retard" ..? you aren't even trying anymore!

 
At 20 October, 2006 16:27, Blogger Andrew said...

"Robert David Steele Vivas (b. July 16, 1952 New York City), is a former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer Central Intelligence Agency.[1] He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. as well as the Golden Candle Society.[2] Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990's."

"ROBERT D. STEELE is a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Mr. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College."

9-11 retard ! burnnnnn him!

 
At 20 October, 2006 17:06, Blogger shawn said...

And Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies.

Copernicus thought that angels moved the planets, stars, and moons around.

This man can list as many credentials as he wants (though that's called appeal to authority). It doesn't change the fact he's been had. He has been rendered moronic by his ideology.

I'd like to point you to this - Mr. Steele is an expert on intelligence (not smarts, the military kind) but based on his review, he doesn't understand critical thinking (thinking Northwoods is good support) nor history (the aforementioned Maine mention).

Throw together a bunch of nonsense (and I've read the book - it's utter nonsense) that flatters his preconceived bias and voila!

 
At 20 October, 2006 17:32, Blogger roger_sq said...

Tarpley is mostly correct. WOnder if any of you have actually read the book you are trashing (or rather trashing the critic of the book you say is garbage therefore he is a moron although you haven't actually read the book)?

 
At 20 October, 2006 17:38, Blogger insidejob said...

haha! you're criticising him for appeal to authority? you twits use it constantly. I don't know who this Steele guy is, but it's pretty sad that you Deniers choose to ignore the actual evidence. the record shows that the Administration consistently ignored intelligence warnings about Al Qaeda, and on top of that we have mounds of other evidence. here's a test of your integrity. try addressing just two pieces of the mountain of evidence: Rumsfeld changed rules for responding to a hijacking in June 2001, so permission had to be obtained directly from him to respond. and while you're at it, how about the astounding "coincidence" that Cheney was overseeing war games and a drill scenario in which A PLANE WAS CRASHING INTO A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, thus providing a "limited hangout" as an excuse for not intercepting the planes.

 
At 20 October, 2006 19:13, Blogger shawn said...

WOnder if any of you have actually read the book you are trashing

Perhaps you should read everyone's posts before commenting, Roger.

you twits use it constantly.

Where? You morons love to throw out mistakes/insults without any support.

it's pretty sad that you Deniers choose to ignore the actual evidence.

Sorry, pal. The deniers are you folks. What now? Are the Jews of '40s Europe the Nazis now?

 
At 20 October, 2006 19:14, Blogger shawn said...

insidejob, first you should check your facts. Then look up Occam's Razor.

 
At 20 October, 2006 19:40, Blogger roger_sq said...

Terrorstorm

good movie.

 
At 20 October, 2006 19:53, Blogger shawn said...

Alex Jones is godly, isn't he?

 
At 20 October, 2006 20:18, Blogger 911coverup said...

Pathetic.

 
At 20 October, 2006 20:43, Blogger shawn said...

Pathetic.

Yup, almost as pathetic as believing nonsense with no support.

 
At 20 October, 2006 21:22, Blogger insidejob said...

shawn, those facts are accurate. I know what Occam's Razor is, and I'm tired of hearing pedantic idiots like you misuse that concept

 
At 20 October, 2006 21:31, Blogger Alex said...

shawn, those facts are accurate.

Oh? Well, great! You should have no problem documenting them then!

Oh, you can't do it without linking to Alex Jones? Darn. Well, I'm sure you're right anyway. Want a juice box?

 
At 20 October, 2006 21:39, Blogger Richard said...

I know what Occam's Razor is, and I'm tired of hearing pedantic idiots like you misuse that concept

Really?????

REALLY????

So you basically are saying that"


"Yes. Quite simple to pull off really. All I had to do was have explosives planted in the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being high-jacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever ... ever!

is more simple that:

19 pissed off muslims did it.

 
At 20 October, 2006 21:45, Blogger shawn said...

I know what Occam's Razor is, and I'm tired of hearing pedantic idiots like you misuse that concept

How did I misuse it?

You're the one listing coincidences (unsourced, of course) and acting as if that's proof. That's you ignoring Occam's Razor. Just because you don't understand terms doesn't mean you can then project that on to me.

 
At 20 October, 2006 21:46, Blogger shawn said...

I'll ask it again:

If an idiot (insidejob - just so the idiots know who I mean) calls you an idiot, is it a compliment?

 
At 20 October, 2006 22:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Insidejob-

I think you're a little confused about the definition of "evidence." What you're asking us to address are your claims, please provide evidence of your claims.

 
At 20 October, 2006 22:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IJ,

Almost forgot-

I've been trying to organize a mock trial of the U.S. governemt, or individuals in the USG, as conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. If you're willing to represent the prosecution you can present your "mountains of evidence" on my blog, http://911ontrial.blogspot.com.


Email me at ontrial911 (at) hotmail.com and we can discuss the details. I still haven't found anyone willing to play the role of prosecuter (although I've heard some interesting excuses from conspiracy theorists why they wouldn't).

 
At 21 October, 2006 07:25, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The best thing about LC Forum going down, and I am speculating on the cause effect relationship of the two, but man has it gotten interesting with the insane troofers we have seen surge into this blog ever since.

Andrew:
nice wikipedia (everyone can be a historian) quote for Mr. Steele.

insidejob:
So your comments are better than those you accuse, how?

911:
your comment was a "pathetic" contribution to the discussion.


Personally I dont care who Steele is , or the book he is praising.

Folks, the 9/11 truth movement is all over but the whining.

DEMS for Congress
DEMS for the Whitehouse
KLEENEX for th troofers, as their movement fades into the cybershelves of history.

TAM

 
At 21 October, 2006 08:40, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Anyone can also add comments to Mr. Steele's "review".

His claims to past service are just that, claims. Absent a proof anyone can claim anything they want about themselves, including on Wikipedia.

 
At 21 October, 2006 15:33, Blogger insidejob said...

I've been challenged to document my claims.

first one:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

aaaaaand the other one:

JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002
(08-21) 15:08 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
"Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building"
By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON [September 2002]

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
"Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport. Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA."

and see the book "Crossing the Rubicon."


Oilempire is a good truth site. maybe you Deniers should try "debunking" it, instead of focusing on Alex Jones.

2 straw-man arguments were used against me.

first, I never said terrorists were not involved. they were, but they were dupes. PNAC knew all about the plan, and may have drawn it up an delivered it through an intermediary (Mahmoud Ahmad). PNAC involvement in this way is actually a very simple explanation for why the Neocons CONSISTENTLY IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS ABOUT AL QAEDA, while Clinton had them under wraps, along with several other glaring facts. moreover it makes perfect sense given several other facts, including the philosophy of the Neocons. Ockham's razor.

second, I'm not saying this amounts to "proof." I am however saying that all the evidence taken together clearly makes PNAC a prime suspect, calling for a REAL investigation of 9/11.

 
At 21 October, 2006 20:47, Blogger shawn said...

But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

I guess you've never seen pictures of this. The simulated accident was in the middle area of the Pentagon.

Oilempire is a good truth site.

That name really makes me think they're objective.

while Clinton had them under wraps

That's why there were more al-Qaeda attacks on American interests under Clinton's watch than Bush's?

9/11 took years of planning, Bush was in office for nine months when it happened. Clinton and his folks dropped the ball, too.

together clearly makes PNAC a prime suspect,

The whole "who benefits" argument doesn't work when all the evidence points to another party.

 
At 21 October, 2006 21:18, Blogger shawn said...

2 straw-man arguments were used against me.

Could you point those out? I have a feeling you don't know what strawman means (like you didn't know what Occam's Razor nor appeal to authority meant).

 
At 22 October, 2006 02:10, Blogger insidejob said...

the straw-man arguments were made obvious. your pretending to be unaware of them made me laugh, you goofy sack of camel shit. yes the name Oilempire does make it seem objective, since oil empire is exactly what the Neocons are all about. and yes Clinton did have Al Qaeda under wraps. your use of the simple number of attacks is pathetic. the first WTC bombing alerted Clinton to Al Qaeda. the USS Cole bombing was a wimpy attack that occured far from U.S. soil. yes that's 2 attacks, which is more than 1! good job you Neocon apologist lying piece of horse turd! Clinton left warnings to the Neocons about Al Qaeda, and the FBI and CIA submitted numerous warnings in the months prior to the attacks, all of which the Neocons consistently ignored. so put that in your PNAC employee, Exxon-stock-havin pipe and smoke it!

(_)_) (_(_) (_)_) (_(_) (_)_) (_(_)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

 
At 22 October, 2006 04:46, Blogger shawn said...

the straw-man arguments were made obvious

No, they weren't. You didn't give any support for the "facts" that we questioned.

you goofy sack of camel shit.

Hmmm ad hominem...beautiful. (It stops being ad hominem when you prove your case - until then, stick to trying to prove your flimsy case and stop insulting people smarter than you.)

yes the name Oilempire does make it seem objective

No, it doesn't. I was being sarcastic. If the neocons were just about oil they would've just lifted the sanctions on Saddam. If it's about the almighty dollar, they would've saved a lot.

the first WTC bombing alerted Clinton to Al Qaeda. the USS Cole bombing was a wimpy attack that occured far from U.S. soil. yes that's 2 attacks, which is more than 1!

...it was more than two there, killer.

so put that in your PNAC employee, Exxon-stock-havin pipe and smoke it!

Look guys a classical liberal who think the stock market is legalized gambling now works for a neocon organization and owns stocks in Exxon! God you're fucking retarded.

 
At 24 October, 2006 08:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

As typical, the OS'ers decide to not consider what an expert opinion might be on a particular conspiracy subject, but turn around and use expert opinions to support their own beliefs in the OS.

The whole "who benefits" argument doesn't work when all the evidence points to another party.

Huh? I always thought qui bono was the first step in any criminal investigation. Yeah who benefited anyway? OBL? Don't think so. Those dead hijackers? Naw. Afghanistan? Nope. Whoever clamied responsiblity might have benefited? Oh yeah that imposter on the video tape didn't benefit either. Did Iraq benefit? Nope. Oh wait they didn't have anything to do with that. See gents, a true act of terrorism is accompanied by a claim of responsiblity, not discovered, so that there is no doubt who did it. Terrorism in most cases is used for some political purpose. Hating and our freedoms certainly is a policical purpose. Bullocks!

So who did benefit anyway?

 
At 24 October, 2006 09:43, Blogger Alex said...

Who benefits when a huband commits murder-suicide?

Guess we'll have to start locking up children for collecting insurance policies.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home