• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Gifford/Arizona shooter is a 9-11 Truther

I am looking forward to the day when I can change the title to this thread to "was" a 9-11 Truther.
 
Speaking of "Ouch" (emphasis mine):

Loughner's favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as "Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change"
Click to expand...

Source

It's important for Debunkers and Truthers alike to occasionally be reminded just how pitifully (and justifiably) obscure "Loose Change" is to the world at large.

Thanks to DavidJames for finding that.
 
alienentity said:
Hmm, good points above. When was the last time an atheist called for the bombing of a church; and when was the last time a truther called for the execution of Bush and Cheney?

I think many still are...
Click to expand...

Maybe that one in Topeka, but that's certainly not unique to atheists (or almost any other sub-group you choose).
 
This is a good reminder of why debunkers do what we do. Spreading conspiracy theories can have very dangerous consequences. It is a tactic that has been used by dangerous individuals since the days of the inquisition. Their claims cannot go unchallenged.
 
The problem that I have with blaming 9-11 conspiracy theories for this guy's actions is that there isn't a lot of evidence that his beliefs regarding 9-11 were a cause at all. It might have just been a symptom of his derangement.

It's very similar to the people who are trying to use this tragedy, in one way or another, to place blame upon their political foes. The scant evidence we do have seems to indicate that the guy was all over the map when it comes to politics, and not really easily categorized as 'liberal' or 'conservative', republican or democrat. I'm not even sure you could call him a Libertarian.

His apparent scattershot political beliefs may also have been a symptom of whatever derangement he suffered from. So, is it a case of a Truther going crazy, or a crazy going Truther? Does it matter at this point?
 
Minadin said:
His apparent scattershot political beliefs may also have been a symptom of whatever derangement he suffered from. So, is it a case of a Truther going crazy, or a crazy going Truther? Does it matter at this point?
Click to expand...

Hate speech, propaganda directed at identifiable groups always matters. Loughner is not the only unstable person who has lashed out at a politically-inspired target.
 
I don't disagree. I'm all for civil discourse, and I believe that physical violence against people you disagree with is the opposite of what we stand for, and have stood for.

However, there are reports that this guy had attended other public meeting(s) with Ms. Giffords, that he had at some point asked her a question at a meeting, and was unsatisfied with the answer she gave. I haven't heard whether the question was 9-11 truth - related or not. It may have been, but I can't assume that. (Don't taze me, bro!)

He did seem to be a person that was unhappy with government in general and she might have just been the easiest, most local 'government figure' to target for his outrage. Do we know if that would have changed if she had been a Republican, Libertarian, Anarchist, Truther, etc?

I don't. I'm not saying it's not possible. Either way, this is a very real tragedy that occurred and had devastating effects on the victims, and the friends and family of those killed or wounded. Innocent people, each of them, who had nothing to do with this gunman. I think it's premature to exploit their loss to prove any sort of point, until we know more.
 
I thought some of you might appreciate what Ms. Giffords had to say about threats to her and the escalation of hateful rhetoric.

March 2010
'We have had hundreds and hundreds of protesters over the course of the last several months. Our office corner has really become an area where the Tea Party movement congregates. And the rhetoric is incredibly heated—not just the calls, but the emails, the slurs. So, I mean, things have really gotten spun up. And, I mean, you’ve got to think about it. Our democracy is a light—a beacon, really—around the world, because we effect change at the ballot box and not because of these, you know, outbursts of violence, in certain cases, and the yelling and the—you know, it’s just—you know, change is important. It’s a part of our process. But it’s really important that we focus on the fact that we have a democratic process.'
' I mean, this is a situation where people don’t—I mean, really we need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things—for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.'

It appears she was aware of the dangers gathering. Source

Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, a three-star general in the SS who had fought in the invasion of the Soviet Union, speaking as to whether the Holocaust was an inevitable result of Nazi philosophy "If for years, for decades, a doctrine is preached to the effect that the Slav race is an inferior race, that the Jews are not even human beings, then an explosion of this sort is inevitable."

We would do well not to minimize the potential impact of hateful propaganda on populations.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I am looking forward to the day when I can change the title to this thread to "was" a 9-11 Truther.
Click to expand...

Are you going to substantiate the claim you made in the OP, Thunder:

"And they say Truthers never do violent acts"?
 
zorro99 said:
This is a good reminder of why debunkers do what we do. Spreading conspiracy theories can have very dangerous consequences. It is a tactic that has been used by dangerous individuals since the days of the inquisition. Their claims cannot go unchallenged.
Click to expand...

I agree. George Bush et al should be incarcerated as soon as possible. They are very dangerous individuals.
 
Minadin said:
However, there are reports that this guy had attended other public meeting(s) with Ms. Giffords, that he had at some point asked her a question at a meeting, and was unsatisfied with the answer she gave. I haven't heard whether the question was 9-11 truth - related or not. It may have been, but I can't assume that. (Don't taze me, bro!)
Click to expand...

The question was:

What is government if words have no meaning?


I think it is high time we start admitting the dangers of grammar nazis.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
We would do well not to minimize the potential impact of hateful propaganda on populations.
Click to expand...

kooks, loons, crazies... all hateful labels thrown on proponents of alternate 911 conspiracy narratives. It's pretty clear what is the direction of the hateful propaganda you mention.

Nothing very unusual though. Those in history who oppose the existing political system have often been labeled as "irrational" and "deluded." For example, Nat Turner and the slaves with him who rebelled in 1831 in the State of Virginia against the slave system. After a few fires and the massacre of several white families, they were finally caught and promptly executed. During their escapade, most journalists and writers labeled them, how surprising, as "irrational" and "deluded" for their attempt at challenging the status quo.

How do you think loyalists viewed revolutionaries during the American Revolution? As sane?
 
Quiproquo said:
kooks, loons, crazies... all hateful labels thrown on proponents of alternate 911 conspiracy narratives. It's pretty clear what is the direction of the hateful propaganda you mention.

Nothing very unusual though. Those in history who oppose the existing political system have often been labeled as "irrational" and "deluded." For example, Nat Turner and the slaves with him who rebelled in 1831 in the State of Virginia against the slave system. After a few fires and the massacre of several white families, they were finally caught and promptly executed. During their escapade, most journalists and writers labeled them, how surprising, as "irrational" and "deluded" for their attempt at challenging the status quo.

How do you think loyalists viewed revolutionaries during the American Revolution? As sane?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can show us anything coherent in the shooters writings.
 
Quiproquo said:
kooks, loons, crazies... all hateful labels thrown on proponents of alternate 911 conspiracy narratives. It's pretty clear what is the direction of the hateful propaganda you mention.

Nothing very unusual though. Those in history who oppose the existing political system have often been labeled as "irrational" and "deluded." For example, Nat Turner and the slaves with him who rebelled in 1831 in the State of Virginia against the slave system. After a few fires and the massacre of several white families, they were finally caught and promptly executed. During their escapade, most journalists and writers labeled them, how surprising, as "irrational" and "deluded" for their attempt at challenging the status quo.

How do you think loyalists viewed revolutionaries during the American Revolution? As sane?
Click to expand...

Psss..pss.. they have no evidence in favour of there contentions. They have only logical fallacies in the offering. They don't listen to evidence that contradicts their contentions. Pss.. psss. that why they are called irrational and loons. They are.

Just sayiing.
 
Quiproquo said:
I am refering to proponents of 9/11 alternate conspiracy narratives, not the Arizona shooter.

The Arizona shooter is clearly unstable.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can show us anything coherent in the writings of proponents of 9/11 alternate conspiracy narratives. :p
 
These anti-government CT cults keep having wackos pop out their ranks killing people and it's no wonder why. They run around the net constantly spewing their fantasies of spurring a bloody revolution, of killing gov't officials, of killing cops and other authorities, of killing even all non-believers. It has even happened countless times on this very forum. I've also personally been threatened online and offline by members of these cults. There have already been several killers from these cults and they never care one bit, in denial that anyone sees these things. They can't even hide that all they care about is spreading their CT cult delusions, hoping that one day their violent fantasies come true. That's why it tragedies like this have happened and will continue to happen.

Yet when have CTers ever had this happen to them. Some "debunker" or someone that doesn't believe their CTs, just went out shooting a bunch of them... I've never even heard of it.
 
Last edited:
Bolded sentences R mine:

chipmunk stew said:
Of those, only Von Brunn could be said to be acting out of his conspiracy beliefs, of which 9/11 conspiracies was only a part. Like Maynard, he was primarily an anti-Semite White Nationalist type.

Only Von Brunn? What about the rest that killed in the name of "9/11 Truth"?

Fitzgerald appears to have been mentally ill, and his murder of his dad had nothing to do with his beliefs about 9/11.

Got evidence that that wasn't the cause? I heard he killed his father because he didn't agree with his son.

There is no indication that the violence perpetrated by Maynard or (allegedly) Sonnenfeld had anything to do with their conspiracy beliefs.

Evidence please!

It's a near certainty that the population of 9/11 Truthers encompasses a higher rate of mental illness than the population as a whole. That doesn't mean that a belief that 9/11 was an Inside Job causes, or is even predictive of, mental illness or violence.

But then again we have people like Alex Jones influencing gullible people into taking action against the Government. Alex has been known to harass Military personall.

The facts simply aren't there to back up such an assertion.

So a raving lunatic Truther, with mental illness, shoots a respected Government Official & planned to murder not only that official, but innocent people (including a 9 yr. old child) just because it's his/her belief to do so. And you say there aren't enough facts to say that Truthers "aren't" murderers? So you would let a killer go free then?! :eek:


Cool melodrama, bro.

You deny me my right to defend my country from foreign & domestic enemies, then you & me have a problem. :mad:

Yes. That's exactly what I want, as anyone can easily surmise from reading my responses to you. It's plain as day.

What's plain as day is that you defend the Truthers, whether they're murderers or insane.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
I am with you on that, I don't trust any of them either, especially with so many of them regularly ranting about committing violence. It's not like they are being falsely accused and slandered. They even openly admit that their main mission is to obsesses on recruiting with the hopes to spark some mass uprising.

These CT cults are akin to and often even adopt racists groups, extreme political groups and their ideals. There isn't a positive or a good side to this.
Click to expand...

You're right Platypus, there isn't a positive or good side to them. All they want to do is do away with the Government by any means nessesary, even if it includes murdering officials.

How many times have the Truthers got into the faces of the 9/11 Families? How many times did they harass Government officials? How many times did they blame the Government for killing nearly 3,000 people? Countless times!

And when they commit a murder of this degree, killing a Federal Judge & the attempted assassination of a congresswoman, they blame who for those acts? The Government or one of us! :rolleyes: What makes me mad is that Truthers don't care that a 9 yr. old child, a little girl, got killed. :mad:

Truthers will defend their own for their cause, but when one of them commits a criminal act, they deny that they ever knew the person. That's why Truthers are the enemy because they make themselves out to be that enemy.

To hell with Truthers, those SOB's want to strip our right to defend this country, they can bring it. They want another Civil War so that millions can die for nothing? Bring it! In the end the Truthers are going to pay the price for their pure stupidity & sheer ignorance of human life.
 
Last edited:
Quiproquo said:
kooks, loons, crazies... all hateful labels thrown on proponents of alternate 911 conspiracy narratives. It's pretty clear what is the direction of the hateful propaganda you mention.

Nothing very unusual though. Those in history who oppose the existing political system have often been labeled as "irrational" and "deluded." For example, Nat Turner and the slaves with him who rebelled in 1831 in the State of Virginia against the slave system. After a few fires and the massacre of several white families, they were finally caught and promptly executed. During their escapade, most journalists and writers labeled them, how surprising, as "irrational" and "deluded" for their attempt at challenging the status quo.

How do you think loyalists viewed revolutionaries during the American Revolution? As sane?
Click to expand...

Oh, well played there. One of the best statements of the Galileo fallacy I've seen in a long time.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, well played there. One of the best statements of the Galileo fallacy I've seen in a long time.

Dave
Click to expand...

Where in my post did I state that a particular view is correct because it is discredited?

Are you simply referring to logic (or what you claim to be logic) to win an argument, Dave?

Is this what we call the Dave fallacy?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, well played there. One of the best statements of the Galileo fallacy I've seen in a long time.

Dave
Click to expand...

If anyone's wondering what Dave's talking about:
Rationalwiki.org said:
The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Catholic church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People will bring it up repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that - more often than not - they just don't understand.
Click to expand...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
​
Problem is, truther's don't qualify as Galileo's:
In "reality", in order to wear the mantle of Galileo, not only must one be scorned by the establishment, but one must also be correct.
Click to expand...
Nobody scorns conspiracy fantasists out of misunderstandings. On the contrary, it's misunderstandings of what the actual history and facts are about 9/11 that suck people into conspiracy mythologies to begin with (You know, molten steel, free-fall, "missing", therefore insinuated stolen Trillions of dollars, pull it, NORAD stood down, etc.).

Truthers are scored because they're wrong.
 
Quiproquo said:
Where in my post did I state that a particular view is correct because it is discredited?

Are you simply referring to logic (or what you claim to be logic) to win an argument, Dave?

Is this what we call the Dave fallacy?
Click to expand...

And now the protestations of innocence! Classic!

This is a brilliant performance. I can't wait for the next installment.

Dave
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Bolded sentences R mine:
chipmunk stew said:
Of those, only Von Brunn could be said to be acting out of his conspiracy beliefs, of which 9/11 conspiracies was only a part. Like Maynard, he was primarily an anti-Semite White Nationalist type.

Only Von Brunn? What about the rest that killed in the name of "9/11 Truth"?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Evidence that ANY of them "killed in the name of "9/11 Truth""? I'm perfectly willing to look at it, and will accept it if you can produce it, but I've not seen it.

And I mean evidence. Not "connecting the dots" the way the Truthers do.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
Fitzgerald appears to have been mentally ill, and his murder of his dad had nothing to do with his beliefs about 9/11.

Got evidence that that wasn't the cause? I heard he killed his father because he didn't agree with his son.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Evidence beyond un-cited hearsay?

Truthers heard there were six dancing Israelis celebrating 9/11.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
There is no indication that the violence perpetrated by Maynard or (allegedly) Sonnenfeld had anything to do with their conspiracy beliefs.

Evidence please!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Your standards of evidence are as fallacious as the Truthers'.

Example--
Me: There is no indication that explosives were used in any of the buildings.
Truther: Evidence please!

It's called shifting the burden of proof.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
It's a near certainty that the population of 9/11 Truthers encompasses a higher rate of mental illness than the population as a whole. That doesn't mean that a belief that 9/11 was an Inside Job causes, or is even predictive of, mental illness or violence.

But then again we have people like Alex Jones influencing gullible people into taking action against the Government. Alex has been known to harass Military personall.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that. Truthers use non sequiturs like this all the time.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
The facts simply aren't there to back up such an assertion.

So a raving lunatic Truther, with mental illness, shoots a respected Government Official & planned to murder not only that official, but innocent people (including a 9 yr. old child) just because it's his/her belief to do so. And you say there aren't enough facts to say that Truthers "aren't" murderers? So you would let a killer go free then?! :eek:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
None of what you said follows from my comment, or any other comment I've made regarding the shooter. You build strawmen as quickly and ineffectively as a Truther.

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
Cool melodrama, bro.

You deny me my right to defend my country from foreign & domestic enemies, then you & me have a problem. :mad:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You sound exactly like a Truther. Please explain the origin of this fevered fantasy that I am trying to deny you any such right?

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
chipmunk stew said:
Yes. That's exactly what I want, as anyone can easily surmise from reading my responses to you. It's plain as day.

What's plain as day is that you defend the Truthers, whether they're murderers or insane.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I defend reason, standards of evidence, and facts, whether they're under assault by Truthers or by witch-hunters like you.
 
Quiproquo said:
kooks, loons, crazies... all hateful labels thrown on proponents of alternate 911 conspiracy narratives. It's pretty clear what is the direction of the hateful propaganda you mention.

Nothing very unusual though. Those in history who oppose the existing political system have often been labeled as "irrational" and "deluded." For example, Nat Turner and the slaves with him who rebelled in 1831 in the State of Virginia against the slave system. After a few fires and the massacre of several white families, they were finally caught and promptly executed. During their escapade, most journalists and writers labeled them, how surprising, as "irrational" and "deluded" for their attempt at challenging the status quo.

How do you think loyalists viewed revolutionaries during the American Revolution? As sane?
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
Oh, well played there. One of the best statements of the Galileo fallacy I've seen in a long time.

Dave
Click to expand...

Quiproquo said:
Where in my post did I state that a particular view is correct because it is discredited?

Are you simply referring to logic (or what you claim to be logic) to win an argument, Dave?

Is this what we call the Dave fallacy?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Rationalwiki.org
The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Catholic church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People will bring it up repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that - more often than not - they just don't understand.
 
Quiproquo said:
Where in my post did I commit the logical fallacy you attribute to me?
Click to expand...

This is actually quite a subtle one. It's not exactly the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division, but it's somewhere in the same area, and it's quite a common one. The idea is that, when an entire text is written to convey a message through an obvious implication, not only can the implication be denied, but a demand can be made to identify some limited section of the text which alone embodies the fallacy committed by the whole, after which a failure to identify a suitable subset will be misrepresented as a failed argument. It ought to have a name, but I've not come across it in the taxonomy.

Dave
 
A W Smith said:
Originally Posted by Rationalwiki.org
The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Catholic church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People will bring it up repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that - more often than not - they just don't understand. [/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Ok I think I am starting to understand how you think.

You think I am making some type of following statement:

If you are widely vilified for your ideas, you are right.
I am widely vilified for my ideas.
I am right.

Is that it?

I never made such a logical statement. I made a historic observation.


Secondly, my good friend, since when has an idea become a logical fallacy?
 
Quiproquo said:
I never made such a logical statement. I made a historic observation.
Click to expand...

I've said before that it's impossible to be a conspiracy theorist unless you deny the existence of context. It's impressive, though, that you're able to deny the significance of the context of your own words, and pretend you were simply making an observation with no reference to any preceding discussion. I wonder whether you may not have even fooled yourself as to what you actually meant by now.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I've said before that it's impossible to be a conspiracy theorist unless you deny the existence of context. It's impressive, though, that you're able to deny the significance of the context of your own words, and pretend you were simply making an observation with no reference to any preceding discussion. I wonder whether you may not have even fooled yourself as to what you actually meant by now.

Dave
Click to expand...


The Galileo fallacy is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas you...
Click to expand...

The idea that the idea...?

That makes no sense.
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is actually quite a subtle one. It's not exactly the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division, but it's somewhere in the same area, and it's quite a common one. The idea is that, when an entire text is written to convey a message through an obvious implication, not only can the implication be denied, but a demand can be made to identify some limited section of the text which alone embodies the fallacy committed by the whole, after which a failure to identify a suitable subset will be misrepresented as a failed argument. It ought to have a name, but I've not come across it in the taxonomy.

Dave
Click to expand...

In defense of his original comment, I think he made some valid comparisons, although the arguments were incomplete. You may certainly want to add some qualifiers (as you did) but I don't think it's necessary to try to invalidate his ideas; rather just to clarify the context.

I agree that condemnation of ideas or their proponents is not proof, per se, that those ideas are right or wrong. But that's the whole point, isn't it?

ETA because hate speech can be demonstrably linked to violence against those who are targeted, that's why I cautioned against it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom