conspiracy or joke?

[kevin]

If i understand you the right way, in america
it does´nt really matter what you say and nobody
argues against it seriously?

Nope, what you says matters and people argue all the time. What isn't allowed are laws that say "you can't say that."

The best way to fight speech you don't like is with more speech. Silence just drives it underground where it festers until it explodes.

And if thinking in america is so free - why do
you guys debunk anything? I see no way to
stop ct´s if it´s not a moral problem, wich
would resolve the problem automatically...

To fight speech with speech. Many loud CT's are adament and will never change their mind. But the ones that may believe their crap will see a debunker being just as adament. Those are the people we're trying to make don't fall for the lies. The silent ones, we have to speak so they know the truth, the real truth.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oliver, the debunking process here works much the same way as you mentioned. I was merely referring to the original question we're often asked - why we put up with such nonsense.

The old adage (Montesquieu? Voltaire?) reads, "I may disagree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it!" (I paraphrase 'cuz I'm lazy.)

I like to adjust it: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it, and then step over here and let me rip you to shreds in front of the audience." You see, we also defend our right to tear 'em down, chew them up in little pieces and spit them out all over the carpet.

If you read the rants on Loose Change, you will notice that we are greatly concerned with unfair/loaded debating tactics. JREFers who dare to dispute their catechism get banned toot sweet. Yet, they can come here and we will tolerate them and the pros will tear their arguments into little shreds. Just look at the Christophera thread. If I was to propose to Gravy or any number of others that we ban the guy because he'll never see the light (our light or the light of truth, however you want to term it), I'd have about three hundred forum members on me in no time flat.

Show their theories in the light of day and try to bring them back to earth. It's ultimately far better than having Tim McVeighs out ther skulking in their bedrooms and planning to "get even". If their particular windmill-tilting has a sufficient audience, who am I to say they don't deserve a platform or even representation if they can muster the support and votes. Will I blindly follow them just because they can get a website or a dais? No. The process of debunking is to show the facts and evidence and to allow people to make up their own minds.

Note the pure excitement in Gravy's above post - it's about getting the truth out and showing people that there is a preponderance of evidence that this is nonsense these people are handing out.

 

[kevin]

But to me it looks exactly this way - your gov is
scaring you. And all these security stuff makes
it look even scarier. It´s nothing personal - it´s
the way i look over the ocean.

That is exactly what they are doing. A business man once told me the best way to sell something is to make the customer fear not having what you're selling. The republican party here has gotten very good at this.

Terrorist are a threat. Since the very early days
of human history. But it´s no more threat then
"as usual". The only difference is, that it happend
on american ground.

We Americans are very selfish. If it didn't happen it to us it didn't happen to anyone else, and when it did happen to us it was the single most important thing that ever happened in the history of the world.

One other difference was scale. I don't think there has been a single terrorist attack done by so few people that was so successful -- especially in what the fear made us do to ourselves. We really dropped the ball on finding them, and we had quite a few clues.

 

[Oliver]

That is exactly what they are doing. A business man once told me the best way to sell something is to make the customer fear not having what you're selling. The republican party here has gotten very good at this. We Americans are very selfish. If it didn't happen it to us it didn't happen to anyone else, and when it did happen to us it was the single most important thing that ever happened in the history of the world.

One other difference was scale. I don't think there has been a single terrorist attack done by so few people that was so successful -- especially in what the fear made us do to ourselves. We really dropped the ball on finding them, and we had quite a few clues.

I saw a very "deep digging", german documentary about
the hijackers today, did post a thread here, and they
say that the hamburg-cell of AQ was well observed, from
germany but also from international side. Before 9/11.

Within this film there´s also a interview with a guy from
the NSA and he said they had all connections and info
about AQ, but they "were not allowed to work with it" -
until 9/11.

The idea to hit "these" targets is believed to be from 1995.

So why do we need all this security-stuff if everyone
security agency knew that´s somethings foul before
9/11?

Maybe they´re fooling everyone but i don´t see the
reason. If the Hijackers were under observation, how
did they get to america anyway?

Would´nt it be worth to puzzle this together with
all the skilled people in here?

Instead thermite - no thermite ... thermate! kind
of stupid discussion?

 

[kevin]

So why do we need all this security-stuff if everyone
security agency knew that´s somethings foul before
9/11?

I wrote a blog entry about this
http://www.superfantasmoworld.com/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=45

Unfortunately the news story link I have in there is dead. Basically it was from the Moussaoui trial where they showed all the clues they had that something was going on but completely failed to put the pieces together.

4 days after 9/11 Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert, wrote this, I agree completely with it:

Calls for increased security began immediately. Unfortunately, the quickest and easy way to satisfy those demands is by decreasing liberties. This is always short sighted; real security solutions exist that preserve the free society that we all hold dear, but they're harder to find and require reasoned debate. Strong police forces without Constitutional limitations might appeal to those wanting immediate safety, but the reality is the opposite. Laws that limit police power can increase security, by enforcing honesty, integrity, and fairness. It is our very liberties that make our society as safe as it is.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0109.html#1

On the 30th he wrote a much longer piece. Analyzing the security aspects in much greater detail.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html

Finally a few weeks ago he wrote this:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.


The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.


And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

 

[Piggy]

The Tax Protester FAQ

 

[fuelair]

Okay, it´s not very gently, but i seem to
misunderstood his way of answering without
knowing what the movie is about.

ETA: He did

Actually, he did answer the questions accurately and few Americans would need to see the movie because these doofusses (drekkopfs is, I believe, functionally equivalent) are well known as are their arguments to us. Obviously outside the US there would be no reason to know of them but.....

 

[SwissSkeptic]

In Europe it would regulate itself by morality. "CT´s are
not popular - so go and shut up". This is the way it
would work here.

I'm sorry to jump into this discussion late, Oliver, but I disagree that CTs aren't popular in Europe. We certainly have our own share of nutters. Many of the classical conspiracy theories originated in our part of the world (Illuminati, Protocols of the Elders...) and quite a bit of the current anti-American and anti-Israeli resentment in continental Europe seems borderline CT. I don't know the percentage of 9/11 deniers in Europe and in the USA but I'd be surprised if there was a big difference. Didn't the 9/11 denial thingy start in France, anyway?

Well my point is that Europe isn't better than the USA in this respect, even though we might not have equivalents of their inane JFK and Roswell CTs. If you haven't heard of such brilliant guys as David Icke* it's probably because you were lucky, not because they don't exist.

My only (and seemingly vain) hope is that conspiracy theories will never again be as popular as they were in Europe during the 20st century.



*Eww, that's the second time this week that I've posted a link to Icke's page - I feel dirty now.

 

[carlvs]

That name "Aron Russo" sounded familiar. Then I went to the link and saw the the name was actually Aaron Russo, who's most famous for being Bette Midler's former manager...

In fact, Aaron played a major role in Bette's rise to super-stardom back in the '70's. But the cost was high. He so overworked Ms Midler that she almost "burned herself out" by the middle of that decade, and had to take a year off from performing.

As well as this Mr. Russo managed to alienate just about about anyone who worked with her, in one case almost causing a concert tour in '76 to tear itself apart over one of his scemes (he sold the audio & video rights to one performance and refused to share the profits until forced to do so by Bette.) To this day it is hard to find anyone that worked with Ms Midler in that period that have positive things to say about Aaron.

Eventually, by the end of the decade Bette have had enough of his antics and fired him. However, this was not before he played a role in landing for her the title character in the film The Rose, which would earn for Ms Midler her 1st "Best Actress" Oscar nomination. In fact, some have said that the interaction between that character and the manager in the film was based in part on the Mider - Russo relationship (to which Bette has stated that it was much "sicker" than what was shown.)

Based on what biographer George Mair wrote on him in his 1995 book Bette (incidentally, based on my research, the only one of Ms Midler's biographers who actually had nice things to say about him,) Aaron went on to produce other movies with mixed success and eventually left the business in the early 90's. In 1994, Mr. Russo annouced that he was forming a new political party called the "Constitution Party." From the quote attributed to him on page 261 of the bio, it sounds like this party mixes libertarianism with an extreme anti-tax platform (if we get rid of taxes, we would have no problems.)

If he is going down this path, in my opinon, Bette is well rid of him...

By the way, if you are curious about what I wrote here, I suggest you check out the bios The Divine Bette Midler by James Spada (1984) and Bette Midler: Outrageously Divine by Mark Bego (2004,) as well as the George Mair book I mentioned earlier.

 

[clarsct]

America is an odd country, my German friend. Never before in world history has a country tried to do so much in the world, so fast. In 1812, just a few short decades after we declared ourselves a country, we told Europe to stay out of the Americas!!! (The Monroe Doctrine) And once more, our old enemies, the British, were the ones who put the teeth in it. We took more territory in less than 100 years than some countries ever had. We proved ourselves a world power to be reckoned with in WW1, less than 150 years after our creation!! Zero to world power in less than two centuries. After merely 200 years, were recognized the world over as a dominate power in Western affairs.

Yet, we are young. We don't have the rich history to guide us. Young and frenetic. We value freedom above all else, as a society. We are now trying to balance freedom vs. security. One of our forefathers had this to say:
"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."
(Perhaps misquoted, but the sentiment remains.)
What is happening right now is an experiment, as our whole country has been. We're trying things and seeing what works.

America has always been a social experiment. "The Grand Experiment"

So, we're experimenting. We'll figure it out. You guys have had thousands of years. Be patient. We're young, but we're working on it at our normal breakneck speed. We'll be ok, it'll take a little time is all.

As for the CT's, they are welcome to their opinions. We're a melting pot, and even the crude metals add their strength to the alloy.

Think of them as the spice in the soup.....

 

[Oliver]

I'm sorry to jump into this discussion late, Oliver, but I disagree that CTs aren't popular in Europe. We certainly have our own share of nutters. Many of the classical conspiracy theories originated in our part of the world (Illuminati, Protocols of the Elders...) and quite a bit of the current anti-American and anti-Israeli resentment in continental Europe seems borderline CT. I don't know the percentage of 9/11 deniers in Europe and in the USA but I'd be surprised if there was a big difference. Didn't the 9/11 denial thingy start in France, anyway?

Well my point is that Europe isn't better than the USA in this respect, even though we might not have equivalents of their inane JFK and Roswell CTs. If you haven't heard of such brilliant guys as David Icke* it's probably because you were lucky, not because they don't exist.

My only (and seemingly vain) hope is that conspiracy theories will never again be as popular as they were in Europe during the 20st century.



*Eww, that's the second time this week that I've posted a link to Icke's page - I feel dirty now.

Hello Swisssceptic,

sorry for generalizing the ct´s in my thoughts within
the thread - i talked about the "the governtment are
murderers" kind of CT. And in this context, you would
agree with the "CT is not popular, so go ahead and shut
up"-morality-argument.

Off course i find the illuminati-skull&bones-stories
interesting, too. But even that people love it all
over the world, i never met people around me who
believed in such stuff so hard that they believed in
it as a real threat or something.

Personally, i´m scared about the Holohoax & "the
Joooooos"-Ct´s i saw very often in CT-Boards, because
they don´t know very much about human nature if they
don´t realize, that it is no lie and that this is some-
thing, that is still present in human nature - no matter
if in germany, africa, turkey, bosnia or wheresoever.

@clarsct

America is an odd country, my German friend. Never before in world history has a country tried to do so much in the world, so fast. In 1812, just a few short decades after we declared ourselves a country, we told Europe to stay out of the Americas!!!

Don´t take it personal, ClarsCT - you contradict yourself
in your Statement. I know that many people don´t like americas
"try to do so much in the world" as a country, wich thinks
"stay out of the americas". People from other countries
are just like these americans: "stay out of our country".

This is nothing personal against you or against american
citizens. I hope that things will regulate itself in time and
i personally hope, too, that americas citizens stay free and
learn from the 9/11-event. AQ are CT´s, too - if you think about
it. And nobody in the Muslim world stopped them - you may
think about why.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[Architect]

If I can weigh in on the freedom of speech issue, I find it ammusing that Americans often talk about their right to such a thing as if the rest of us didn't.

In fact, in Europe and the likes of NZ/Oz we do, however common law is quite clear (well, as clear as it can be); this freedom in no way dispenses issues of slander, libel, incitement of religious or racial hatred, and so on.

 

[gumboot]

If I can weigh in on the freedom of speech issue, I find it ammusing that Americans often talk about their right to such a thing as if the rest of us didn't.

In fact, in Europe and the likes of NZ/Oz we do, however common law is quite clear (well, as clear as it can be); this freedom in no way dispenses issues of slander, libel, incitement of religious or racial hatred, and so on.

Actually what I find funny in New Zealand is how far US culture has infiltrated, so that many NZers think we too have a law that states we have the right to free speech.

In truth no such law exists - indeed we have a number of laws that explicitly restrict what you CAN say.

(Having said that, when the gubmint tried to pass an "anti hate-speech" law here recently it was given the big finger, to my great relief.)

US culture has a lot to answer for... another is the whole "you have no right to arrest me, you didn't tell my my rights, etc..."

All of that is nonsense. The police here can arrest someone FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION, even. No need to lay charges. And it is only once charges are laid that any rights need be read.

Oh for the education of the MTV Generation (sadly, mine)

-Andrew

 

[Piggy]

We are now trying to balance freedom vs. security.

I think this is only partially true.

It's not that we are now having to strike that balance, but rather that we're having to return to the issue -- again.

And the most high-profile "security" efforts are not aimed at improving security at all, but at increasing US influence globally and the power of the executive locally.

You'll often hear the argument these days that the US Constitution simply didn't take "terrorism" into account. Which is totally bogus. People forget that the War of Independence -- the battles with British redcoats -- was not the only conflict of the era. Much of the fighting with American Indians and with French irregulars was what we would today define as "terrorism", and the participants "unlawful combatants".

And even as part of the War of Indpendence, there are harrowing accounts of partisan violence, including tarring-and-feathering, and the ransacking and burning of homes.

The framers knew this very well, and yet they still preserved individual liberties in the Constitution, even extending many of the most fundamental of those rights not just to "citizens", but to all "people" on American soil or under American jurisdiction.

The world has seen this kind of situation before, even in relatively modern times. Consider the international effort to quell maritime piracy.

The efforts that have worked have largely been accepted with good humor here in the US. We don't mind inconvenience when it's necessary.

But the invasion of Iraq, the use of warrantless searches and surveillance, the rounding up of foreign nationals, holding people without trial, use of secret evidence, these are not making us more secure. And in fact, they're not intended to. They're intended to extend US power, and the power of the executive over the other branches of government. And they are a horrible mistake.

ETA: I believe I misspoke above. I believe the word is "persons", not "people".

 

[Piggy]

US culture has a lot to answer for... another is the whole "you have no right to arrest me, you didn't tell my my rights, etc..."

All of that is nonsense. The police here can arrest someone FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION, even. No need to lay charges. And it is only once charges are laid that any rights need be read.

So, the police there can make arbitrary arrests in order to induce a period during which a person is in the custody of the government, not free to go, uncharged, and uninformed of his rights?

And you think that's a good idea? Good Lord, why?

 

[Oliver]

But the invasion of Iraq, the use of warrantless searches and surveillance, the rounding up of foreign nationals, holding people without trial, use of secret evidence, these are not making us more secure. And in fact, they're not intended to. They're intended to extend US power, and the power of the executive over the other branches of government. And they are a horrible mistake.

That´s what i thought, too - even if i would´nt
describe it as mistake - i would say it´s dangerous,
reminding my history.

It´s like "Shut up, we are driving your country now",
beeing said to their own citizens. And many of them
accept this because of a threat that does´nt exist
in my view and in the scale it´s beeing told to us
usual people...

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Hello Swisssceptic,

sorry for generalizing the ct´s in my thoughts within
the thread - i talked about the "the governtment are
murderers" kind of CT. And in this context, you would
agree with the "CT is not popular, so go ahead and shut
up"-morality-argument.

You've got a good point. However I think it depends on which government we're talking about. European CTists often don't have that idea of an omnipotent evil own government, although the European Union is slowly starting to come close to that in the minds of some CTists. The sentiment amongst CTists in Europe seems to be that the American government is evil and omnipotent. (I wonder if it has to do with the decades of exposure to the anti-American/ anti-capitalist/ anti-zionist-pigs conspiracy theories that were officially endorsed by communist and socialist regimes.)

What I don't understand in your argument is what morality has to do with the popularity of a CT. Are you saying that some CTs aren't popular in Europe because they're immoral?

ETA: For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with you that the "the joOOO00s did it"-kind of conspiracy is by far the most worrying kind, as it isolates a whole ethnicity as culprit - which is not only stupid but dangerous.

 

[gumboot]

So, the police there can make arbitrary arrests in order to induce a period during which a person is in the custody of the government, not free to go, uncharged, and uninformed of his rights?

And you think that's a good idea? Good Lord, why?

The police can arrest someone if they feel that it is necessary to maintain public order. Generally that means you arrest someone you suspect of having committed a crime. But, for example, they will arrest drunks and put them in a cell to sober up sometimes, and in other situations they will arrest you for your own safety and take you somewhere else (home, hopefully) just to remove you from the situation.

Bear in mind "arrest" does not equal "lock up". They have to charge you before they can lock you up, and they have to read you your rights when they charge you.

Yes, I think it's a good idea. Why? It works. We have a significantly lower crime rate than any of our fellow "anglo-sphere" nations, and we have one of the top police forces in the world. Despite a recent media crusade to defame our police (for whatever reason) they are still highly regarded. They're unarmed, they don't impede our freedoms in any significant way, and things are rather great, frankly.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

You've got a good point. However I think it depends on which government we're talking about. European CTists often don't have that idea of an omnipotent evil own government, although the European Union is slowly starting to come close to that in the minds of some CTists. The sentiment amongst CTists here seems to be that the American government is evil and omnipotent. (I wonder if it has to do with the decades of exposure to the anti-American/ anti-capitalist/ anti-zionist-pigs conspiracy theories that were officially endorsed by communist and socialist regimes.)

What I don't understand in your argument is what morality has to do with the popularity of a CT. Are you saying that some CTs aren't popular in Europe because they're immoral?

No, i say that in my and your country, too, you
would´nt walk around and tell everybody, that
"our gov" are a bunch of murderers - without
hard facts.

In america these people have a voice. And because
of that, they can infect other peoples minds, too
with such stupid allegations.

ETA:
@Andrew: That´s the exact way it works here and
i also think it´s okay that police interact when some-
ones "running naked around and howling the moon" or
if someone is to drunken to think clearly...

...even if there´s no "specific law" against "naked
Moonhowling"...

 

[Piggy]

Bear in mind "arrest" does not equal "lock up". They have to charge you before they can lock you up, and they have to read you your rights when they charge you.

Ok. That changes the equation. Here, you can be locked up on suspicion. It's the civilian powers who decide whether and what to charge. I was once locked up for "resisting arrest" when the police responded to a brawl outside my apartment, but was never charged with anything. It has always boggled my mind that I was arrested for not wanting to be arrested. (And of course the inmates at Gitmo are simply being warehoused there, tho that doesn't involve the US police.)

And as you no doubt know, our police are armed. Some of them heavily. In the town I used to live in before I moved here, the cruisers (patrol cars) had vertically mounted long guns in the cab.

Miranda rights were instituted in order to prevent situations in which people in custody were never made aware that they had a right to legal council, even if they could not afford to pay a private attorney. This was especially the case for immigrants unfamiliar with the US legal system. This could result in an accused person "agreeing" to interrogations, when in fact they believed that they were required to do what the police told them to do and didn't understand that they have no obligation to submit to interrogation.

Abuse of police power in the US is not ubiquitous by any means, but it is also not uncommon. If you can find it, watch the documentary film "Murder on a Sunday Morning" (aka "Un Coupable Ideal"). I highly recommend it, and not just if you're interested in this topic. See also "Capturing the Friedmans", which describes how a kiddy porn case was railroaded into multiple fabricated charges of child sexual abuse against the man who possessed the kiddy porn and also his son, who was totally uninvolved. Here's a link to Jesse Friedman's page.