The first video is a promo for a band called the Bastard Fairies. It stars a young actress and is directed, so they say, by an award winning documentary team.
The second video is Bill O'Reillys reaction to it, and a call for state child-raising and community mobs.
Brilliant.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Headlines
I know I go on about Fox all the time, but I genuinely find them fascinating. I struggle to understand how grown adults can be so deceitful, misleading and trivial when it comes to reportage, but I guess that shows off my naivity more than their callousness.
Anyway, look at this. It's my RSS news feeds, courtesy of a great site called NetVibes.
I draw your attention to the feeds for Reuters, BBC and Fox and ask you to compare their headlines. Here they are closer up:
Now, far be it from me to decide what the lead stories for various news organisations should be, but I do find it a little worrying that two of the most respected news sources in the world are running with Palestinian story and Fox have chosen to go with Angelina Jolie talking about kissing two slightly different people.
I know that Americans live sheltered lives when it comes to international news stories but, good grief, 5 out of 7 of their headlines are celebrity related...!
Anyway, look at this. It's my RSS news feeds, courtesy of a great site called NetVibes.
I draw your attention to the feeds for Reuters, BBC and Fox and ask you to compare their headlines. Here they are closer up:
Now, far be it from me to decide what the lead stories for various news organisations should be, but I do find it a little worrying that two of the most respected news sources in the world are running with Palestinian story and Fox have chosen to go with Angelina Jolie talking about kissing two slightly different people.
I know that Americans live sheltered lives when it comes to international news stories but, good grief, 5 out of 7 of their headlines are celebrity related...!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Happy Feet will Corrupt Your Children
I know that the 'Happy feet is liberal propaganda' story has been running for a while now, but here's the original Fox News video that kicked it off.
This makes me so mad, so infuriatingly hoppingly insane that I find it hard to form the words... they're not even trying to disguise it as news anymore, now they're just attacking anything - anything - that smacks of not agreeing with rampant consumerism, global corporate power and foreign policy. How absolutely paranoid do you have to be to fear an animated flick about dancing penguins and see it as an attack on your values and the American way of life...
I can't stand the fact that they disguise it as balanced opinion... before it was funny, now it makes me sick to my stomach. "An animated Inconvenient Truth" - "my kids were bouncing off the wall because it's so damned long" - "it presents man and big business as evil" - they write their opinions off as news, they claim promoting their agenda is discussion and bit by bit they are erroding logic and empathy from the minds of their audience.
This makes me so mad, so infuriatingly hoppingly insane that I find it hard to form the words... they're not even trying to disguise it as news anymore, now they're just attacking anything - anything - that smacks of not agreeing with rampant consumerism, global corporate power and foreign policy. How absolutely paranoid do you have to be to fear an animated flick about dancing penguins and see it as an attack on your values and the American way of life...
I can't stand the fact that they disguise it as balanced opinion... before it was funny, now it makes me sick to my stomach. "An animated Inconvenient Truth" - "my kids were bouncing off the wall because it's so damned long" - "it presents man and big business as evil" - they write their opinions off as news, they claim promoting their agenda is discussion and bit by bit they are erroding logic and empathy from the minds of their audience.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Pastor resigns over homosexuality
"In a tearful videotaped message Sunday to his congregation, the senior pastor of a thriving evangelical megachurch in south metro Denver confessed to sexual relations with other men and announced he had voluntarily resigned his pulpit."
Full story here.
You know what I'd like to see, just once? A pastor come out and be allowed to keep his post, or at least fight to keep his post. So he's gay. Big fat hairy deal. I don't think that means his dedicated to the church has waivered. Wouldn't it be great if he didn't resign under the assumed knowledge that being gay is shameful and immoral, and sent a posititive message instead? Just once. It's not like this guy was the horrific homophobe and hypocrit that Ted Haggard was...
Full story here.
You know what I'd like to see, just once? A pastor come out and be allowed to keep his post, or at least fight to keep his post. So he's gay. Big fat hairy deal. I don't think that means his dedicated to the church has waivered. Wouldn't it be great if he didn't resign under the assumed knowledge that being gay is shameful and immoral, and sent a posititive message instead? Just once. It's not like this guy was the horrific homophobe and hypocrit that Ted Haggard was...
Monday, November 27, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
ITV
NTL Share Prices Fall After Rumours of ITV Takeover Bid
There's been a lot in the news recently about ITV and their myriad of problems; takeovers, falling audience numbers, decreased advertising revenue, failed digital ventures, lack of web presence, lack of creativity, lack of experimentation, reliance on soaps, uninspired programming... the list goes on and on.
And it's all true. ITV are an embarrassment and the sooner they get bought out / closed down / go into receivership, the better this countries broadcasting quality will be. Everything that is wrong with ITV can be seen in this clip of the new Family Fortunes 2006 opening titles.
ITV: Everything. That. Is. Wrong. With. Television.
Thanks to Andy Digitonal for spotting this one.
Digital TV has still yet to really take off and so many people have only 4 or 5 channels. These 4 or 5 channels, therefore, have a greater responsibility to their audience than their digital counterparts. This clip illustrates only too well that ITV are no longer capable of fulfilling that responsibility.
They rely on inane celebrity hosts, revamps of outdated shows, an end-of-the-pier approach to entertainment, low production values, patronising attitudes and, it would seem, an almost total contempt for the intelligence of their audience. They are poorly managed, poor programmed, poorly funded and barely watchable. When they decided to fill every evening slot past 11 o'clock with interactive quiz shows that, intended or not, resemble a telethon for a failing channel, you know they're fucked.
"It's only TV" you may cry, or "you may not like it but others do" but that is not a valid argument. There is nothing wrong with light entertainment, nor quiz shows, nor family programming but there is everything wrong with the approach that this channel takes to them. We've been patronised for so long by this pathetic commercial entity that we've forgotten what good TV looks like.
Ditch the channel. Sack the management. Start again.
And don't give it to fucking NTL.
There's been a lot in the news recently about ITV and their myriad of problems; takeovers, falling audience numbers, decreased advertising revenue, failed digital ventures, lack of web presence, lack of creativity, lack of experimentation, reliance on soaps, uninspired programming... the list goes on and on.
And it's all true. ITV are an embarrassment and the sooner they get bought out / closed down / go into receivership, the better this countries broadcasting quality will be. Everything that is wrong with ITV can be seen in this clip of the new Family Fortunes 2006 opening titles.
ITV: Everything. That. Is. Wrong. With. Television.
Thanks to Andy Digitonal for spotting this one.
Digital TV has still yet to really take off and so many people have only 4 or 5 channels. These 4 or 5 channels, therefore, have a greater responsibility to their audience than their digital counterparts. This clip illustrates only too well that ITV are no longer capable of fulfilling that responsibility.
They rely on inane celebrity hosts, revamps of outdated shows, an end-of-the-pier approach to entertainment, low production values, patronising attitudes and, it would seem, an almost total contempt for the intelligence of their audience. They are poorly managed, poor programmed, poorly funded and barely watchable. When they decided to fill every evening slot past 11 o'clock with interactive quiz shows that, intended or not, resemble a telethon for a failing channel, you know they're fucked.
"It's only TV" you may cry, or "you may not like it but others do" but that is not a valid argument. There is nothing wrong with light entertainment, nor quiz shows, nor family programming but there is everything wrong with the approach that this channel takes to them. We've been patronised for so long by this pathetic commercial entity that we've forgotten what good TV looks like.
Ditch the channel. Sack the management. Start again.
And don't give it to fucking NTL.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Rumsfeld to be Accused in Germany For War Crimes
Though he has resigned as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld is expected to be accused of war crimes in a lawsuit to be filed next week in Germany.
The Center for Constitutional Rights will file the suit on behalf of a group of Iraqi detainees as well as the so-called 20th hijacker, who is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"The former secretary actually authorized a series of interrogation techniques," said Michael Ratner, President of CCR. "They included the use of dogs, stripping, hooding, stressed positions, chaining to the floor, sexual humiliation and those types of activities."
Those techniques, he says, amount to torture and violate the Geneva Conventions. Ratner will be traveling to Berlin next week and plans to file the suit on Tuesday.
Full story.
The Center for Constitutional Rights will file the suit on behalf of a group of Iraqi detainees as well as the so-called 20th hijacker, who is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"The former secretary actually authorized a series of interrogation techniques," said Michael Ratner, President of CCR. "They included the use of dogs, stripping, hooding, stressed positions, chaining to the floor, sexual humiliation and those types of activities."
Those techniques, he says, amount to torture and violate the Geneva Conventions. Ratner will be traveling to Berlin next week and plans to file the suit on Tuesday.
Full story.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Hung parliment
Saddam Hussein sentenced to death
I was in a second hand record fair in Bakewell, Derbyshire when I heard this. Radio 2 announced it to the small council room and just one voice could be heard afterwards... "about bloody time" a man in the corner said, we all looked at him and then turned away.
It's weird that news like that, news it's possible we would have all cheered 10 years ago can now be greated with such ambivolence. Such are the events of the last 5 years that this is no longer a cause for celebration or a reason for outrage... it's just another part of the story.
I was in a second hand record fair in Bakewell, Derbyshire when I heard this. Radio 2 announced it to the small council room and just one voice could be heard afterwards... "about bloody time" a man in the corner said, we all looked at him and then turned away.
It's weird that news like that, news it's possible we would have all cheered 10 years ago can now be greated with such ambivolence. Such are the events of the last 5 years that this is no longer a cause for celebration or a reason for outrage... it's just another part of the story.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The weekly Bill O'Reilly fix
In Bills new mailout he talks about his appearance on the Letterman show and how:
Here's a link to the full column.
Here's the Letterman interview courtesy of the lovely YouTube:
It's pretty good theatre - Bill makes an ass of himself, Dave gets some good insults in and the debate is quite heated. I would draw your attention, though, to the bit that runs from 2 minutes in to 3 minutes in that starts with Bill saying:
If ever one statement explained Fox News' attitude to their audience, it's that one.
Here's a link to the Rosie O'Donnell interview.
Start at 1.25 when Bill outlines his theories about the culture war. This is chilling stuff... I always try to avoid using terms like 'fascist' and 'Orwellian' as these days such terms are used on a daily basis and have been robbed of their meaning, but in this case I'll make an exception. The 'outing' of secular progressives, the glorification of Judeo-Christian morality, the scaremonging, the rewriting of history... it reminded me of McCarthyism meeting Eugene Terre Blanche.
"predictably, the far-left in America has seized upon the Iraq situation to once again paint their country as villainous. That is both sad and infuriating. Recently, I appeared on "The View" and "Late Show with David Letterman," flogging my book "Culture Warrior." Both Rosie O'Donnell, the new lead on "The View," and Mr. Letterman are liberal people who vehemently object to the war. So I asked them: "Do you want your country to win in Iraq?"
Here's a link to the full column.
Here's the Letterman interview courtesy of the lovely YouTube:
It's pretty good theatre - Bill makes an ass of himself, Dave gets some good insults in and the debate is quite heated. I would draw your attention, though, to the bit that runs from 2 minutes in to 3 minutes in that starts with Bill saying:
"Whenever you have a situation where Americans are... depressed. People don't want to watch the news, people don't want to hear about Iraq, they don't want to hear about Iran, they don't want to hear about the nutty North Korean guy. They wanna watch Bowling for Dollars... Dancing With the Stars..."
If ever one statement explained Fox News' attitude to their audience, it's that one.
Here's a link to the Rosie O'Donnell interview.
Start at 1.25 when Bill outlines his theories about the culture war. This is chilling stuff... I always try to avoid using terms like 'fascist' and 'Orwellian' as these days such terms are used on a daily basis and have been robbed of their meaning, but in this case I'll make an exception. The 'outing' of secular progressives, the glorification of Judeo-Christian morality, the scaremonging, the rewriting of history... it reminded me of McCarthyism meeting Eugene Terre Blanche.
billoreilly.com
SweetJesusIHateBillOReilly.com
Monday, October 30, 2006
Gotcha!
The image is pretty small so this is what the subtitle says:"Sharon Wood stares from the window of the Corfu chalet where her two little children died... her face unable to hide the unbearable pain."
It's a shame that the Daily Mirrors online front page differs from their printed one as todays lead story was a masterpiece of writing. Alas, though, the online front page changes by the hour and I can't find the specific piece so you'll have to trust me on this one.
Anyway, two things occured to me when I caught this front page in the newsagents earlier. The first is how much the writing of the subtitle, and indeed the whole story if I could prove it, resembles a Hello! magazine spread. Take the subtitle and just change a few words and you'll find it to be the exact same language as they use to announce another inane celebrity event:
"Brad and Angelina pose in Nambia as they await the birth of their baby."It's the party line, it's the official statement. It doesn't offer you any other way to interpret the picture, it leads nothing to chance. The language is so clear and understandable that the usual questions or ambiguity that headlines use to lure you in have been completely removed.
Obviously there is a big difference between the two news stories, and clearly there is no other way to report the Sharon Wood story as anything other than the horrific tragedy that it is, but this subtitle really concerned me. It was a celebrity cover...
Which brings me to the second thing that occured to me about this front page; it's a paparazzi shot. This wasn't taken by a fleet of photographers as they entered the chalet, nor was it posed for by Ms Wood - it was taken with a telephoto lens. That's very dark... a grief-filled mother has become an appropriate target for the stalkaratzi.
Of course the story is sympathetic to Ms Wood - it couldn't be anything else - but that doesn't justify intruding on her personal grief. This isn't a celebrity tit-slip, or a politician fallen from grace, or a massive public tragedy... this is a woman who's just lost both her children and she should be allowed to visit the place where they died without a commission-hungry hack hiding outside a window trying to get snaps of her.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Good News
Enron's Skilling gets 24 years
Made my day. Take that Skilling, you fucking leech on society - I just wish Ken Lay was *still alive* to get the same fate.
Made my day. Take that Skilling, you fucking leech on society - I just wish Ken Lay was *still alive* to get the same fate.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The old switcharoo
Loads of things about Iraq right now... the tide seems to be turning, and while I think it's a good idea our beloved leaders are bullied into finally changing their foreign policies, I can't help but think of the stupidity of our actions and what a mess we've created.
Basically we've fucked up a whole country. It may not have been a great country, but we've utterly ruined it now. A 5th of the population dead, political and religious chaos, no security, no infrastructure and one hell of a pissed off populous. We've destroyed the lives of 26,000,000 people, and no amount of backtracking and schedule shifting is going to change that. We're the assholes, we're the baddies, we're the meglomaniacal masterminds with plans for world domination.
I just feel so damned sorry.
A few from today:
Schroeder says Bush's religious talk worried him
Bush faces political nightmare if Democrats win
US Republicans launch terror ad
and my favourite:
Wife's phonecam pics 'smoking gun' in sex-with-dog case
Basically we've fucked up a whole country. It may not have been a great country, but we've utterly ruined it now. A 5th of the population dead, political and religious chaos, no security, no infrastructure and one hell of a pissed off populous. We've destroyed the lives of 26,000,000 people, and no amount of backtracking and schedule shifting is going to change that. We're the assholes, we're the baddies, we're the meglomaniacal masterminds with plans for world domination.
I just feel so damned sorry.
A few from today:
Schroeder says Bush's religious talk worried him
Bush faces political nightmare if Democrats win
US Republicans launch terror ad
and my favourite:
Wife's phonecam pics 'smoking gun' in sex-with-dog case
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Republican Sex-Pest Labelled Democrat by O'Reilly
October 3rd 2006
"Tonight on three separate occasions, during two different segments, Bill O'Reilly showed video of his fellow culture warrior, boy-crazy Congressman Mark Foley, with the tagline "Former Congressman Mark Foley (D-FL)."
That’s right, kids. Mark Foley, that darling of the right and champion of child protection, was dubbed a Democrat as soon as it came out that he's child predator. This is what we in the business call "a lucky accident."
But will the average Fox News viewer see the three-time accident for what it is—a mistake? Consider that, according to the Columbia Journalism Review and Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) Research Center, Fox News viewers have far more misconceptions on such important issues as Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks than viewers of other networks. Consider also that the average O'Reilly viewer is 71. And that’s just an average. So for every 30-year-old Factor fan, there's a 112-year-old screaming about "secular progressives" and whomever else has criticized Bill.
So we can promise you that the average O'Reilly fan is sleeping well tonight with the knowledge that the creep in Florida who was trying to bed boy pages was a Democrat after all.
- SweetJesusIHateBillOReilly.com
"Tonight on three separate occasions, during two different segments, Bill O'Reilly showed video of his fellow culture warrior, boy-crazy Congressman Mark Foley, with the tagline "Former Congressman Mark Foley (D-FL)."
That’s right, kids. Mark Foley, that darling of the right and champion of child protection, was dubbed a Democrat as soon as it came out that he's child predator. This is what we in the business call "a lucky accident."
But will the average Fox News viewer see the three-time accident for what it is—a mistake? Consider that, according to the Columbia Journalism Review and Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) Research Center, Fox News viewers have far more misconceptions on such important issues as Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks than viewers of other networks. Consider also that the average O'Reilly viewer is 71. And that’s just an average. So for every 30-year-old Factor fan, there's a 112-year-old screaming about "secular progressives" and whomever else has criticized Bill.
So we can promise you that the average O'Reilly fan is sleeping well tonight with the knowledge that the creep in Florida who was trying to bed boy pages was a Democrat after all.
- SweetJesusIHateBillOReilly.com
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
98% Back Veil Ban
My favourite news story of the day.
Thank you Daily Express. Thank you for such a newsworthy story and for splashing it over the front pages. Thank you for being so socially concious that you thought it applicable to basically put out a call for increased intolerance, misunderstanding and fear amongst the British population.
It's always been very interesting how the Americans tend to 'forget' that their incredible wealth is due to a hundred years of free labour thanks to the slave trade. I worry that the same thing is happening here - we invited thousands of darker-skinned foreigners over to our shores post-war to help us rebuild our nation, and then turn our backs on them. Now we are a few generations down the line, now these peoples childrens children are beginning to feel at home, now they have a legitimate right to try to live by their own customs, now they have a voice - we start to demonise them.
The Guardian headline yesterday was about universities being asked to spy on Muslim students to see if they had any extremist leanings. Problem is, alot of Muslims look like 'normal people' these days - if only these extremists could wear something that would set them apart from 'normal' people and make them easier for us to see.
Thank you Daily Express. Thank you for such a newsworthy story and for splashing it over the front pages. Thank you for being so socially concious that you thought it applicable to basically put out a call for increased intolerance, misunderstanding and fear amongst the British population.
It's always been very interesting how the Americans tend to 'forget' that their incredible wealth is due to a hundred years of free labour thanks to the slave trade. I worry that the same thing is happening here - we invited thousands of darker-skinned foreigners over to our shores post-war to help us rebuild our nation, and then turn our backs on them. Now we are a few generations down the line, now these peoples childrens children are beginning to feel at home, now they have a legitimate right to try to live by their own customs, now they have a voice - we start to demonise them.
The Guardian headline yesterday was about universities being asked to spy on Muslim students to see if they had any extremist leanings. Problem is, alot of Muslims look like 'normal people' these days - if only these extremists could wear something that would set them apart from 'normal' people and make them easier for us to see.
MCDONALD'S BUYING WAY INTO HIP-HOP SONG LYRICS
“The stars of hip-hop have become brands,” said Douglas Freeland, director of brand entertainment strategy at McDonald’s. “This partnership reflects our appreciation and respect for the most dominant youth culture in the world.”
"Telegram to Hip Hop: Dear Hip Hop .(stop). This shit has gone too far. (stop). Please see that mixer and turntables are returned to Kool Herc. (stop). The ghettos are dancing off beat. (stop). The master of ceremonies have forgotten that they were once slaves and have neglected the occasion of this ceremony. (stop). Perhaps we should not have encouraged them to use cordless microphones, for they have walked too far from the source and are emitting a lesser frequency (stop). Please inform all interested parties that cash nor murder have been added to the list of elements. (stop). We are discontinuing our current line of braggadocio, in light of the current trend in "realness". (stop). As an alternative, we will be confiscating weed supplies and replacing them with magic mushrooms, in hopes of helping niggas see beyond their reality. (stop). Give my regards to Brooklyn."
- Saul Williams
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
"A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks. The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue."
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
How influential is Kate Moss?
Very... according to this article on the Suicide Girls Newswire.
This is the full piece:
This is the full piece:
CELEB: Kate Moss is the 'World's Most Influental Celebrity'
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:00:00 -0700
In a rather disturbing development, British researchers named Kate Moss as the most influential celebrity in the world. She beat out do-gooders such as Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and Brad Pitt.
British experts analyzed how many times a star is mentioned in the media, magazine covers, and entries on Google.com to come up with the power list.
Everyone's favorite born-again Brit Madonna came in at #2, with soccer stud David Beckham in third. Angelina edged out her real-life paramour, Brad Pitt, by one spot to come in at #5.
This revelation comes as a shock, as Moss made more headlines for her naughty lifestyle and her public drug habit, rather than for her positive, influential ways. Moss landed on magazine covers everywhere after photos surfaced of her diving face-first into a pile of cocaine.
Her romance with another famous junkie, Babyshambles frontman Pete Doherty, consistently keeps her in the news. Tales of the couple fighting, partying and, trouble-making delight celeb-watchers everywhere. Despite this, Moss, who has a four year old daughter, reportedly said she wants to have a child with Doherty as soon as possible; she believes it will help him kick drugs.
According to the Sunday Mirror, she told a pal: "I love him and know that, for all his faults, I will spend the rest of my life with him.
"I also want my little girl Lila to have a brother or a sister.
"But Pete has to stay off the drugs. And the only way for that to happen is if he's with me all the time."
Yeah, dude. I hear the best way get a man to settle down is to get knocked up. Works like a charm, according to my grandmother.
Cyber Terrorism
There's a very interesting article on a simulated cyber-terrorist attack on Wired News here.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Video testimony of vote machine whistleblower
Here's video of Clint Curtis, a former programmer for Yang Enterprises (YEI) in Florida, testifying under oath that Representative Tom Feeney asked him to write a voting machine program to rig elections. Feeney is Republican Congressman who was the Speaker of the House of Florida at the time, as well as a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises, and Yang Enterprises' corporate attorney. (Feeney was also named one of the "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington).
Full story from BoingBoing.net>
Full story from BoingBoing.net>
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
25 Questions that Undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement
This list of questions was recently posted on NeoAetheism.com and was addressed to those naysayers who don't believe the official US administrations explanation after investigations into 9/11. Most recently these naysayers have started using film as a medium to convey their doubts - as witnessed in such productions as Loose Change and Press For Truth.
I sent the link, which can be found here, to my friend Matt who has an interest in this subject and he just replied with his set of answers, which I thought I'd post.
The questions are in this normal grey colour, Matts responses in red and my comments in white.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link. Here's my answers:25 Questions that undermine the “9/11 Truth Movement”:
Question #1. If the government was willing to slaughter 3,000 people for a political agenda, why haven’t inconveniences like Dylan Avery and Steven Earl Jones been silenced?
Mass slaughter is not the same as assasinating or disappearing someone. Slaughter is inconceivable.
Conspiracy theorists will always exist, and they can always be painted as extremists and lunatics by the powers that be. Silencing them would have no purpose when they can just be discredited. Hell, look what happens to someone who has a legitimate complaint when they take on the right-wing media...
Question #2. Why was not one of the plane hijackers from Afghanistan or Iraq? Why were most of them from Saudi Arabia? Doesn’t that place the U.S. in a negative light?
D'er. Bin Laden? Is he not from Saudi Arabian royal stock with hugh oil interests? And, er yes, I guess that does cast a gloomy picture of the US. Come to think of it why has Iraq been 'bombed back to the stone age'?
It's not like the US administration personally hired these hi-jackers - they didn't take out help wanted ads in local papers. Osama Bin Laden, once an employee of the US, was exactly the right person to do the job. A quick word in his ear would be all that would be required to instigate this plan. When people say the US government was behind it, they don't mean they did all the planning, phone calls and photocopying - it means they were aware of the machinations in place and willfully chose to ignore them so as to create a war of distraction and create an unified, utopian, Christian country.
And as for the Saudi thing - yes it make them look bad, but they probably thought they could cover up the truth and succeed on the basis of their propaganda. They believed themselves to be the bastion of truth and that people would trust in them whatever they said. Alas, it was same theory for Scooter Libby, Ken Lay, Haliburton and, oh, the Iraq invasion.
Question #3. Why has as leftists claim no WMD been found in Iraq? Couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant them there?
Well obviously not. Plus, couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant lies in peoples minds to make them believe that WMD were there. That's seems a lot easier?
That doesn't matter. What matters is they got to invade Iraq, got to invade Afghanistan, got to topple both governments and replace them with their own puppet presidents and, most importantly, seize control of their oil. Like they're trying to do with Iran right now. The ends justify the means. WMD? Yesterdays news and they know it.
Question #4. When Bush was told about the 9/11 attack in that classroom on that morning, why did he sit there for seven minutes? Why didn’t he in an act, display himself as a hero that was going to counteract the wrong that was done against our nation?
I have been wondering about that also for sometime.
Yup. Me too. This isn't about the US administration planning the attacks. It's about instigating a chain of events that they can control and use to their benefit. It's doubtful Bush ever knew this was going to happen... he couldn't, it's way too risky. But Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, could.
The overall idea behind all this was to provide an enemy for the Amercian public so, trembling in fear, they would align themselves behind their president and give carte blanche to the administration to do whatever was neccessary. This of course would provide cover for any foreign policy changes and any invasions that may need to be done to cover the enormous dependancy the US has on foreign, and mostly middle-eastern, oil. Problem is, the president wigged out and froze and didn't display himself to be the hero that he should have been - he did exactly the opposite. Much like in Iraq where they didn't embrace the US invasion and started fighting back.
Question #5. How is it that the Bush administration executed the most cleverly orchestrated conspiracy of all time but was not able to cover up a minor hunting incident involving Dick Cheney?
Bit more at stake perhaps?
You need to lose the idea of a conspiracy - it's not like 24 with President Logan taking secret phone calls in the Oval Office, it's about a chain of events being triggered that play, ultimately, to Western interest. There's nothing to cover up, except almost a willful desire to ignore any advance warning.
Question #6. Why is it that Arabs across the Middle East danced in the streets with joy over 9/11? Were they paid off by the C.I.A.? You can view the Middle East response by text or check out a documentary showcasing it here.
No. They truly hate the US.
Jeez. These questions are written by a guy who's read the Da Vinci Code one too many times. You think that the whole Arab response was orchestrated? Stupid question.
Question #7. Now Bush devised 9/11 with the intention to blame Muslims right? Why pray tell did he allow the granting of a visa to terrorist sponsor Mohammad Khatami? The former dictator of Iran? At the Islamic Society of North America, he had this to say,” As America claims to be fighting terrorism, it implements policies that cause the intensification of terrorism and institutionalized violence… Public opinion can be rescued from the grips of ignorance and blunder and the domination of arrogant, warmongering and violence-triggering policies will end.” During the Israel-Lebanon conflict he described Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.” Wouldn’t Bush do whatever it took to maintain his credibility and thus not let him in?
No? I don't know the man. Nor do I trust him.
All these question utterly miss the point of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's not about absolute control - you're imagining a fascistic society from the 1940s - it's about a political landscape that allows for the dominance of one ideology over another. Dissidence is good. Opinion is good. It creates the impression of a free society. Why would the Administraion (I'm not saying President here as it's stupid to imply that he was the mastermind) orchestrate such events and then become fascistic in nature immediately afterwards? Again, stupid question.
Question #8. Why did the draft that the likes of John Kerry kept parroting never come into occurrence?
Draft of what?
The military draft is a subject that's brought up whenever America enters a conflict. It has no relevance here.
Question #9. If George W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil, why did it take three years for the oil production there to rise above pre-war levels?
You're right! That is a bit slow. Also, funny oil production's now up, but the country's in civil war. Odd?
Again, what do you imagine? They invade Iraq and the first step is the oilfields? That would be an acknowledgment of their real intentions. The Iraq oil production has stayed out of the headlines and allowed to slowly build. Who cares about that when there's American soldiers dying? That is such a naive question.
The more interesting points to note are the speed with which the Taliban government were ousted and given an ex-Oil lobbyist as a president instead, and the fact that US Peak Oil Production occured sometime in the early 1970s. The three largest untapped oil reserves in the world are in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Kazikstan. Invaded one, tried to invade another and courting the last with promises of investment.
Question #10. Why has there been not a single structural engineering expert that has come forward saying 9/11 was done by the government?
They're all a bunch of wussie squares. Oh, and they don't want to loose their safe little jobs, or the use of their legs in some freak road accident.
Who says they haven't? Who said they tried and were discredited by the Administration and ignored by the media.
Question #11. There are allegations that a missile hit the pentagon. As shown by the pictures in this computer simulation showing light poles sliced in two, how could a missile do this? The "9/11 Truth Movement" still has yet to explain the enormous eyewitness accounts found here and here.
They were paid off or made up?
I'd still like to know how a plane vaporised on impact when that's proven to be physically impossible. Seriously. Missile or no missle, where's the remains on the fucking plane?
Question #12. There’s no dispute that two planes hit the world trade centers. Were men of the C.I.A. willing to die for the Bush administration by flying the planes?
Were the office workers prepared to take one for the president?
Good god! These really are stupid questions. They were real Arabs, with a real willingness to die. They weren't CIA men browned up and putting on silly accents.
Question #13. What is the difference when the religious can not explain an event and say “God did it!” and conspiracy theorists who can not explain an event and say “Bush did it!”?
Come to think of it, I now think God did it. Bush moves in the most mysterious ways.
Those planes really hit those towers, and somewhere down the line someone really allowed this to happen. God did not throw the planes. Is this question meant to be philisophical or rhetorical? Either way, the two are incomparable.
It's these sort of opinions that contribute directly to idea that anyone who questions the official line is a conspiracy nut. It's irresponsable and it's naive. I don't agree with everything in Loose Change - in fact I thing much of it is pretty flimsy - but, good grief, they're valid questions and we deserve answers.
Question #14. How come Bill Clinton isn't said to be part of the conspiracy? Didn't he let Osama Bin Laden go numerous times?
Yeah. But I kinda liked the fella. ;)
Yeah, all you have to do is check the signatures on all those pardons that Osama received. I could go on about Clinton being terrorised to distraction by Republican hitmen over a sexual misdemeanor and use Bosnia as an example but that would give further weight to the validity of these questions. I will say, though, that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been in the Administration since before Reagan (who, lest we forget, employed Bin Laden in the first place and gave him the funding and training he needed). Presidents are puppets, it's the people controlling the strings you need to worry about.
Question #15. Applying Occam's razor, don't we come to the conclusion that human incompetence would be the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy?
Isn't that like saying the towers were pushed over?
Greed, my friend, is the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy. That and a near divine belief that you, and only you, are right.
Question #16. Seeing as how most of the war conspiracies have to do with oil endeavors, why has the United States placed an oil embargo on Iran for quite some time now?
Coz they've got Iraq (and numerous others)
Two reasons; The first is to keep the world oil production at a steady level - an influx of the stuff would be as bad for the economy as a shortage. These people aren't stupid - they're ex-oil men for Christs sake. It's not about having all the oil in the world NOW, it's about controlling the supply in the future.
The second has to do with alliance - Iran famously sold their oil in Euros, not dollars, which undermined the US currency. That was when the 'Iran could make a bomb' stories first emerged (incidentally, Halliburton have been selling nuclear enrichment technology to Iran since 2000 - which was when Bush and Cheney dismantled the 'selling nuclear materials to rogue nations' law - arguing it was against the free speech rights of corporations to restrict who they can do business with). Iran, also incidentally, was a friend of the US during the initial war on terror but found their offers of negotiation flatly ignored once Afghanistan was conquored. They then appeared as one of the 'axis of evil' which gave fuel to the anti-US sentiment that was brewing.
Anyway. Iran is with China. China is the new world superpower and has unprecidented control over the US because of their overwhelming import / export ratio. Obviously you can't fuck with the Chinese, but you can fuck with their major oil supplier.
Question #17. What fascist government in history has butchered thousands of people only then to let people openly protest it across the country?
France
Heh. Good answer. It's also worth noting that the US aren't (at least openly) a fascistic government. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, why bother controlling people when you can make them think they're free?
Question #18. Taking the conspiracy at face value, why aren't aren't the "9/11 Truthers" getting the hell out of the United States? Wouldn't they be gravely afraid from a government that just menacingly slaughtered three thousand of its own citizens?
No. There is an American constitution still. Just about.
Dude, that's a stupid fucking question.
Question #19. Wouldn't a 9/11 conspiracy demonstrate the horrific consequence of big government? So why are "9/11 Truthers" still consistently for government based solutions (Medicare, Social Security, welfare, etc., and even government education)?
Coz they aren't all a bunch of Anarchists.
Ignoring how loaded and inaccurately phrased your question is (there's that suggestion that you're either one or the other again - how people love to polarise an issue) it is still retarded. Asking questions about the most significant event of our generation and believing in the basic requirements of government to provide services and aid for its population are utterly unconnected.
Question #20. How can it be that the "9/11 Truthers" believe in such a sinister government and at the same time want to deprive the common man the tools to stop it (being for gun control)?
Oh God. That's a truly worrying question.
Once again you have stopped picking holes in the arguments and started alluding to the 'un-American' attitude of anybody who dares raise these issues. Your question is another example of the slow form of socialisation that occurs to convince the public at large that not following the official party line is unpatriotic.
With this question your are directly suggesting that these '9/11 Truthers' are working against the people of the United States. Where does the assumption that people who don't believe the official explanation of 9/11 want to suppress your basic freedoms come from? In the wake of this terrible event you have seen far more suppression of human rights by your own government than by the people who question them.
As for your example of gun control. Are you fucking serious? How are the two connected? Although I'd say that the events of the last week are enough to suggest that, I dunno, automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the general public or, oh lets see, the NRA fight against banning weapons on school property wasn't their greatest move. While you're at it why not claim that abortions rob America of good patriots, or that the death penalty is good old Western justice, or that they hate Bush because they won't accept Jesus as their personal saviour?
Dude. You're a tool.
Question #21. Why wasn't the conspiracy done at night so that it has a lesser chance of being exposed?
Less Chance of being seen?
Great question. I have no answer to that. Exactly how does one do a "conspiracy at night"?
Question #22. Why didn't the goverment just exclusively use the bombs (that allegedly brought down the towers) instead of involving the planes in the WTC attacks? Doesn't that just needlessly overcomplicate things and create a greater chance of being discovered as a government plot?
Yeah and what about that building that just fell down without being hit (WTC7)?
Again, another great question. Well done. You were having a real brain day there. What's more suspicious; two building essential to the world economy suddenly blow up for no reason and the government say it was terrorists. Or actual terrorists really attack a building and the government get to exploit world favour and do what they want.
Question #23. Why did the conspiracy arrangers crash a plane in the middle of nowhere instead of using it to kill even more people?
That would just look dumb.
I thnk we can all agree that the passengers of the Flight 93 really did bring that plane down before it hit its target.
Question #24. Why crash a plane into the pentagon? Doesn't just hamper the efforts toward the wars to come?
Why hit a strategic target with a laser-guided cruise missile?
Because that'd be like robbing every house on a street except yours. Want another cliche? You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.
Question #25. George W. Bush claims that the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So why wasn't the Statue of Liberty attacked to demonstrate this?
That's been done to death in the movies.
Firstly they don't hate us because of our freedoms. That's rhetocial nonsense that means nothing. They hate us because our freedoms are secured by oppressing, bullying and controlling the rest of the world and - above all else - them. It ain't hard to work out.
The Statue of Liberty is just a statue (given to you, lest we forget, by those cheese eating surrender monkeys the French) with only a couple of hundred people inside and would have little effect. The Twin Towers is vital to the economy of the Whole Western World and destroying them is an attack on our way of living - aggressive capitalism - and not just some half baked notion of freedom. This question demonstrates your absolute lack of understanding of this subject - the geopolitcial, historical, ethical and governmental influences are completely ignored in favour of rhetorical jingoism.
---------------------------------
I'm happy to argue these points. Truth be told I enjoy it. What worries me is that this list of questions received relatively mainstream media attention. Questioning the questioners is always a good idea, but this list is presented as a valid argument when in truth all it is is another attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't swallow the 'truth.' The questions are loaded, speculative and based on little or no evidence - infact they read a little like a list of charges that must be defended.
I'm not sure what happened that day. No-one is. I don't buy anything the Administration says, but I also find it hard to believe that they swapped planes, changed serial numbers and murdered citizens. I think that there are a staggering amount of questions that need to answered and these so called '9/11 Truthers' are the only people asking them. Publicity like this does not help the learned person achieve any form of understanding in this world, it just helps to undermine them.
I sent the link, which can be found here, to my friend Matt who has an interest in this subject and he just replied with his set of answers, which I thought I'd post.
The questions are in this normal grey colour, Matts responses in red and my comments in white.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link. Here's my answers:25 Questions that undermine the “9/11 Truth Movement”:
Question #1. If the government was willing to slaughter 3,000 people for a political agenda, why haven’t inconveniences like Dylan Avery and Steven Earl Jones been silenced?
Mass slaughter is not the same as assasinating or disappearing someone. Slaughter is inconceivable.
Conspiracy theorists will always exist, and they can always be painted as extremists and lunatics by the powers that be. Silencing them would have no purpose when they can just be discredited. Hell, look what happens to someone who has a legitimate complaint when they take on the right-wing media...
Question #2. Why was not one of the plane hijackers from Afghanistan or Iraq? Why were most of them from Saudi Arabia? Doesn’t that place the U.S. in a negative light?
D'er. Bin Laden? Is he not from Saudi Arabian royal stock with hugh oil interests? And, er yes, I guess that does cast a gloomy picture of the US. Come to think of it why has Iraq been 'bombed back to the stone age'?
It's not like the US administration personally hired these hi-jackers - they didn't take out help wanted ads in local papers. Osama Bin Laden, once an employee of the US, was exactly the right person to do the job. A quick word in his ear would be all that would be required to instigate this plan. When people say the US government was behind it, they don't mean they did all the planning, phone calls and photocopying - it means they were aware of the machinations in place and willfully chose to ignore them so as to create a war of distraction and create an unified, utopian, Christian country.
And as for the Saudi thing - yes it make them look bad, but they probably thought they could cover up the truth and succeed on the basis of their propaganda. They believed themselves to be the bastion of truth and that people would trust in them whatever they said. Alas, it was same theory for Scooter Libby, Ken Lay, Haliburton and, oh, the Iraq invasion.
Question #3. Why has as leftists claim no WMD been found in Iraq? Couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant them there?
Well obviously not. Plus, couldn’t the Bush administration easily plant lies in peoples minds to make them believe that WMD were there. That's seems a lot easier?
That doesn't matter. What matters is they got to invade Iraq, got to invade Afghanistan, got to topple both governments and replace them with their own puppet presidents and, most importantly, seize control of their oil. Like they're trying to do with Iran right now. The ends justify the means. WMD? Yesterdays news and they know it.
Question #4. When Bush was told about the 9/11 attack in that classroom on that morning, why did he sit there for seven minutes? Why didn’t he in an act, display himself as a hero that was going to counteract the wrong that was done against our nation?
I have been wondering about that also for sometime.
Yup. Me too. This isn't about the US administration planning the attacks. It's about instigating a chain of events that they can control and use to their benefit. It's doubtful Bush ever knew this was going to happen... he couldn't, it's way too risky. But Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, could.
The overall idea behind all this was to provide an enemy for the Amercian public so, trembling in fear, they would align themselves behind their president and give carte blanche to the administration to do whatever was neccessary. This of course would provide cover for any foreign policy changes and any invasions that may need to be done to cover the enormous dependancy the US has on foreign, and mostly middle-eastern, oil. Problem is, the president wigged out and froze and didn't display himself to be the hero that he should have been - he did exactly the opposite. Much like in Iraq where they didn't embrace the US invasion and started fighting back.
Question #5. How is it that the Bush administration executed the most cleverly orchestrated conspiracy of all time but was not able to cover up a minor hunting incident involving Dick Cheney?
Bit more at stake perhaps?
You need to lose the idea of a conspiracy - it's not like 24 with President Logan taking secret phone calls in the Oval Office, it's about a chain of events being triggered that play, ultimately, to Western interest. There's nothing to cover up, except almost a willful desire to ignore any advance warning.
Question #6. Why is it that Arabs across the Middle East danced in the streets with joy over 9/11? Were they paid off by the C.I.A.? You can view the Middle East response by text or check out a documentary showcasing it here.
No. They truly hate the US.
Jeez. These questions are written by a guy who's read the Da Vinci Code one too many times. You think that the whole Arab response was orchestrated? Stupid question.
Question #7. Now Bush devised 9/11 with the intention to blame Muslims right? Why pray tell did he allow the granting of a visa to terrorist sponsor Mohammad Khatami? The former dictator of Iran? At the Islamic Society of North America, he had this to say,” As America claims to be fighting terrorism, it implements policies that cause the intensification of terrorism and institutionalized violence… Public opinion can be rescued from the grips of ignorance and blunder and the domination of arrogant, warmongering and violence-triggering policies will end.” During the Israel-Lebanon conflict he described Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.” Wouldn’t Bush do whatever it took to maintain his credibility and thus not let him in?
No? I don't know the man. Nor do I trust him.
All these question utterly miss the point of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's not about absolute control - you're imagining a fascistic society from the 1940s - it's about a political landscape that allows for the dominance of one ideology over another. Dissidence is good. Opinion is good. It creates the impression of a free society. Why would the Administraion (I'm not saying President here as it's stupid to imply that he was the mastermind) orchestrate such events and then become fascistic in nature immediately afterwards? Again, stupid question.
Question #8. Why did the draft that the likes of John Kerry kept parroting never come into occurrence?
Draft of what?
The military draft is a subject that's brought up whenever America enters a conflict. It has no relevance here.
Question #9. If George W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil, why did it take three years for the oil production there to rise above pre-war levels?
You're right! That is a bit slow. Also, funny oil production's now up, but the country's in civil war. Odd?
Again, what do you imagine? They invade Iraq and the first step is the oilfields? That would be an acknowledgment of their real intentions. The Iraq oil production has stayed out of the headlines and allowed to slowly build. Who cares about that when there's American soldiers dying? That is such a naive question.
The more interesting points to note are the speed with which the Taliban government were ousted and given an ex-Oil lobbyist as a president instead, and the fact that US Peak Oil Production occured sometime in the early 1970s. The three largest untapped oil reserves in the world are in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Kazikstan. Invaded one, tried to invade another and courting the last with promises of investment.
Question #10. Why has there been not a single structural engineering expert that has come forward saying 9/11 was done by the government?
They're all a bunch of wussie squares. Oh, and they don't want to loose their safe little jobs, or the use of their legs in some freak road accident.
Who says they haven't? Who said they tried and were discredited by the Administration and ignored by the media.
Question #11. There are allegations that a missile hit the pentagon. As shown by the pictures in this computer simulation showing light poles sliced in two, how could a missile do this? The "9/11 Truth Movement" still has yet to explain the enormous eyewitness accounts found here and here.
They were paid off or made up?
I'd still like to know how a plane vaporised on impact when that's proven to be physically impossible. Seriously. Missile or no missle, where's the remains on the fucking plane?
Question #12. There’s no dispute that two planes hit the world trade centers. Were men of the C.I.A. willing to die for the Bush administration by flying the planes?
Were the office workers prepared to take one for the president?
Good god! These really are stupid questions. They were real Arabs, with a real willingness to die. They weren't CIA men browned up and putting on silly accents.
Question #13. What is the difference when the religious can not explain an event and say “God did it!” and conspiracy theorists who can not explain an event and say “Bush did it!”?
Come to think of it, I now think God did it. Bush moves in the most mysterious ways.
Those planes really hit those towers, and somewhere down the line someone really allowed this to happen. God did not throw the planes. Is this question meant to be philisophical or rhetorical? Either way, the two are incomparable.
It's these sort of opinions that contribute directly to idea that anyone who questions the official line is a conspiracy nut. It's irresponsable and it's naive. I don't agree with everything in Loose Change - in fact I thing much of it is pretty flimsy - but, good grief, they're valid questions and we deserve answers.
Question #14. How come Bill Clinton isn't said to be part of the conspiracy? Didn't he let Osama Bin Laden go numerous times?
Yeah. But I kinda liked the fella. ;)
Yeah, all you have to do is check the signatures on all those pardons that Osama received. I could go on about Clinton being terrorised to distraction by Republican hitmen over a sexual misdemeanor and use Bosnia as an example but that would give further weight to the validity of these questions. I will say, though, that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been in the Administration since before Reagan (who, lest we forget, employed Bin Laden in the first place and gave him the funding and training he needed). Presidents are puppets, it's the people controlling the strings you need to worry about.
Question #15. Applying Occam's razor, don't we come to the conclusion that human incompetence would be the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy?
Isn't that like saying the towers were pushed over?
Greed, my friend, is the most reasonable explanation for the 9/11 tragedy. That and a near divine belief that you, and only you, are right.
Question #16. Seeing as how most of the war conspiracies have to do with oil endeavors, why has the United States placed an oil embargo on Iran for quite some time now?
Coz they've got Iraq (and numerous others)
Two reasons; The first is to keep the world oil production at a steady level - an influx of the stuff would be as bad for the economy as a shortage. These people aren't stupid - they're ex-oil men for Christs sake. It's not about having all the oil in the world NOW, it's about controlling the supply in the future.
The second has to do with alliance - Iran famously sold their oil in Euros, not dollars, which undermined the US currency. That was when the 'Iran could make a bomb' stories first emerged (incidentally, Halliburton have been selling nuclear enrichment technology to Iran since 2000 - which was when Bush and Cheney dismantled the 'selling nuclear materials to rogue nations' law - arguing it was against the free speech rights of corporations to restrict who they can do business with). Iran, also incidentally, was a friend of the US during the initial war on terror but found their offers of negotiation flatly ignored once Afghanistan was conquored. They then appeared as one of the 'axis of evil' which gave fuel to the anti-US sentiment that was brewing.
Anyway. Iran is with China. China is the new world superpower and has unprecidented control over the US because of their overwhelming import / export ratio. Obviously you can't fuck with the Chinese, but you can fuck with their major oil supplier.
Question #17. What fascist government in history has butchered thousands of people only then to let people openly protest it across the country?
France
Heh. Good answer. It's also worth noting that the US aren't (at least openly) a fascistic government. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, why bother controlling people when you can make them think they're free?
Question #18. Taking the conspiracy at face value, why aren't aren't the "9/11 Truthers" getting the hell out of the United States? Wouldn't they be gravely afraid from a government that just menacingly slaughtered three thousand of its own citizens?
No. There is an American constitution still. Just about.
Dude, that's a stupid fucking question.
Question #19. Wouldn't a 9/11 conspiracy demonstrate the horrific consequence of big government? So why are "9/11 Truthers" still consistently for government based solutions (Medicare, Social Security, welfare, etc., and even government education)?
Coz they aren't all a bunch of Anarchists.
Ignoring how loaded and inaccurately phrased your question is (there's that suggestion that you're either one or the other again - how people love to polarise an issue) it is still retarded. Asking questions about the most significant event of our generation and believing in the basic requirements of government to provide services and aid for its population are utterly unconnected.
Question #20. How can it be that the "9/11 Truthers" believe in such a sinister government and at the same time want to deprive the common man the tools to stop it (being for gun control)?
Oh God. That's a truly worrying question.
Once again you have stopped picking holes in the arguments and started alluding to the 'un-American' attitude of anybody who dares raise these issues. Your question is another example of the slow form of socialisation that occurs to convince the public at large that not following the official party line is unpatriotic.
With this question your are directly suggesting that these '9/11 Truthers' are working against the people of the United States. Where does the assumption that people who don't believe the official explanation of 9/11 want to suppress your basic freedoms come from? In the wake of this terrible event you have seen far more suppression of human rights by your own government than by the people who question them.
As for your example of gun control. Are you fucking serious? How are the two connected? Although I'd say that the events of the last week are enough to suggest that, I dunno, automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the general public or, oh lets see, the NRA fight against banning weapons on school property wasn't their greatest move. While you're at it why not claim that abortions rob America of good patriots, or that the death penalty is good old Western justice, or that they hate Bush because they won't accept Jesus as their personal saviour?
Dude. You're a tool.
Question #21. Why wasn't the conspiracy done at night so that it has a lesser chance of being exposed?
Less Chance of being seen?
Great question. I have no answer to that. Exactly how does one do a "conspiracy at night"?
Question #22. Why didn't the goverment just exclusively use the bombs (that allegedly brought down the towers) instead of involving the planes in the WTC attacks? Doesn't that just needlessly overcomplicate things and create a greater chance of being discovered as a government plot?
Yeah and what about that building that just fell down without being hit (WTC7)?
Again, another great question. Well done. You were having a real brain day there. What's more suspicious; two building essential to the world economy suddenly blow up for no reason and the government say it was terrorists. Or actual terrorists really attack a building and the government get to exploit world favour and do what they want.
Question #23. Why did the conspiracy arrangers crash a plane in the middle of nowhere instead of using it to kill even more people?
That would just look dumb.
I thnk we can all agree that the passengers of the Flight 93 really did bring that plane down before it hit its target.
Question #24. Why crash a plane into the pentagon? Doesn't just hamper the efforts toward the wars to come?
Why hit a strategic target with a laser-guided cruise missile?
Because that'd be like robbing every house on a street except yours. Want another cliche? You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.
Question #25. George W. Bush claims that the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So why wasn't the Statue of Liberty attacked to demonstrate this?
That's been done to death in the movies.
Firstly they don't hate us because of our freedoms. That's rhetocial nonsense that means nothing. They hate us because our freedoms are secured by oppressing, bullying and controlling the rest of the world and - above all else - them. It ain't hard to work out.
The Statue of Liberty is just a statue (given to you, lest we forget, by those cheese eating surrender monkeys the French) with only a couple of hundred people inside and would have little effect. The Twin Towers is vital to the economy of the Whole Western World and destroying them is an attack on our way of living - aggressive capitalism - and not just some half baked notion of freedom. This question demonstrates your absolute lack of understanding of this subject - the geopolitcial, historical, ethical and governmental influences are completely ignored in favour of rhetorical jingoism.
---------------------------------
I'm happy to argue these points. Truth be told I enjoy it. What worries me is that this list of questions received relatively mainstream media attention. Questioning the questioners is always a good idea, but this list is presented as a valid argument when in truth all it is is another attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't swallow the 'truth.' The questions are loaded, speculative and based on little or no evidence - infact they read a little like a list of charges that must be defended.
I'm not sure what happened that day. No-one is. I don't buy anything the Administration says, but I also find it hard to believe that they swapped planes, changed serial numbers and murdered citizens. I think that there are a staggering amount of questions that need to answered and these so called '9/11 Truthers' are the only people asking them. Publicity like this does not help the learned person achieve any form of understanding in this world, it just helps to undermine them.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Inspiration
I'm happy to accept suggestions as to what the third part of the blog trilogy should be...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
