conspiracy or joke?

[SwissSkeptic]

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.

Ah, but they have a voice here, too. If you open up magazines like "Esotera", "Magazin 2000 Plus" or "Wissenschaft ohne Grenzen" you'll occasionally see such conspiracy theories in existence. It's just that nobody really listens to them.

 

[Oliver]

It's just that nobody really listens to them.

That´s the difference to america, i think. That was
my failure when i first saw "loose change". I really took it
more serious because of it´s popularity. Such stupidity
would´nt get such enormous attention here over several
months, right?

 

[SwissSkeptic]

That´s the difference to america, i think. That was
my failure when i first saw "loose change". I really took it
more serious because of it´s popularity. Such stupidity
would´nt get such enormous attention here over several
months, right?

I certainly hope that it wouldn't.

 

[Oliver]

I certainly hope that it wouldn't.

BTW: Would you like to help me mith the translation of the "Spiegel"-documentary i saw? It would be very enlightening
to some CT´s without a clue for reality.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64030

 

[Piggy]

FWIW, the last couple of times I've come back from Europe, I've had to repressurize, so to speak, to the atmosphere of the US.

The impression I get, after having reaccustomed myself to European sensibilities and then jumping back to the States, is "Oh my God, we're a bunch of freaking hicks!"

And we are.

I mean, think about it. The great appeal of Bush was that he seemed to be no more informed or intelligent than your average Joe. He literally wore blue collar shirts with the sleeves rolled up during his campaigns ("blue collar" = "working class" here, and "rolling up your sleeves" is a metaphor for preparing to do manual labor or preparing to fist-fight).

Despite the fact that he's the pampered scion of a wealthy and powerful family, educated in the ivy league, no military service to speak of, no experience in successfully running a business, he continually lambasted his opponents as elitist rich-boys from high-falutin' schools who were disconnected from the working man. And it worked!

And this isn't unique with him. It's not unusual to see newbie politicians playing up the angle that they're not politicians and have no experience in Washington. It's like someone claiming that he'd be a better CEO than the guy in charge now because he has no experience whatsoever running a company.

America is strongly (tho not universally) anti-intellectual. Growing up, I never let kids who were not in my classes know that I made good grades. It would have been a stigma.

In Europe, my experience is that even folks who do not have formal education don't want to be seen as uninformed. Over here, knowing too much is often seen as "putting on airs", or "trying to be better than everyone else".

We also have along tradition of distrusting those in power. Our political system is built around this distrust, in fact. And that's a good thing. In fact, I'm deeply concerned about the current trend toward reversing this situation -- doing away with the notion that power is inherent with the citizen and only granted at his/her pleasure to the government -- and replacing it with a mentality of "We elect them to run the country, so shut up and let them run it".

When you combine American anti-intellectualism, distrust of power, and rather fundamentalist religous mindset, together with strong protections of free speech (which I adamantly support) and the fact that the country is so geographically large and isolated (only 2 nations on our borders) that it is not generally necessary or practical to travel outside the country or get news or books from anywhere else, you've got a breeding ground for crackpot conspiracy theories.

 

[Elizabeth I]

In the town I used to live in before I moved here, the cruisers (patrol cars) had vertically mounted long guns in the cab.

(bolding mine)

That sounds like the police force planned to shoot out the roofs of their own cruisers. I know a lot of people have a low opinion of the police, but that can't be right...

 

[Oliver]

FWIW, the last couple of times I've come back from Europe, I've had to repressurize, so to speak, to the atmosphere of the US.

The impression I get, after having reaccustomed myself to European sensibilities and then jumping back to the States, is "Oh my God, we're a bunch of freaking hicks!"

And we are.

I mean, think about it. The great appeal of Bush was that he seemed to be no more informed or intelligent than your average Joe. He literally wore blue collar shirts with the sleeves rolled up during his campaigns ("blue collar" = "working class" here, and "rolling up your sleeves" is a metaphor for preparing to do manual labor or preparing to fist-fight).

Despite the fact that he's the pampered scion of a wealthy and powerful family, educated in the ivy league, no military service to speak of, no experience in successfully running a business, he continually lambasted his opponents as elitist rich-boys from high-falutin' schools who were disconnected from the working man. And it worked!

And this isn't unique with him. It's not unusual to see newbie politicians playing up the angle that they're not politicians and have no experience in Washington. It's like someone claiming that he'd be a better CEO than the guy in charge now because he has no experience whatsoever running a company.

America is strongly (tho not universally) anti-intellectual. Growing up, I never let kids who were not in my classes know that I made good grades. It would have been a stigma.

In Europe, my experience is that even folks who do not have formal education don't want to be seen as uninformed. Over here, knowing too much is often seen as "putting on airs", or "trying to be better than everyone else".

We also have along tradition of distrusting those in power. Our political system is built around this distrust, in fact. And that's a good thing. In fact, I'm deeply concerned about the current trend toward reversing this situation -- doing away with the notion that power is inherent with the citizen and only granted at his/her pleasure to the government -- and replacing it with a mentality of "We elect them to run the country, so shut up and let them run it".

When you combine American anti-intellectualism, distrust of power, and rather fundamentalist religous mindset, together with strong protections of free speech (which I adamantly support) and the fact that the country is so geographically large and isolated (only 2 nations on our borders) that it is not generally necessary or practical to travel outside the country or get news or books from anywhere else, you've got a breeding ground for crackpot conspiracy theories.

I tried to explain my view wich is alike your views about
the situation. My problem is, that my neutral views about
things within america, are some kind of criticism against
america, but this is not true.

After i asked about the democratic system with the "2-party"
constellation, i got this answers within JREF/Politics:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63611

I also have more questions about that but i don´t have
the courage to ask my questions because i don´t want
people think, that i´m criticizing their system. People
act angry in here if i try to find answers regarding the
world i live in...

 

[The_Fire]

*pats piggy on the head* Now, now , don't be sad. America is still a toddler after all. Give it time. And if your country survives the next 500 years, it may grow sensible yet .

 

[Dog Town]

*pats piggy on the head* Now, now , don't be sad. America is still a toddler after all. Give it time. And if your country survives the next 500 years, it may grow sensible yet .

And when the rest of the world needs help for anything, they will Call the US. Begging for our help once again. I say we hang up this time. Let the "Older well adjusted" countries learn to make it alone! Like that will ever happen! LOL!

 

[Oliver]

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:

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

Hello Kevin,

i´ve read your links but i see it in a complete different way.
9/11 has nothing to do with "hate against US-Freedom".

And the other thing is: If the DIA knew about all points
within Al Qaida and "Anthony Shaffer" as a member of the
Defense Intelligence Agency said this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt._Col._Anthony_Shaffer

He says that when he and others involved in Able Danger decided they should share this information with the FBI, that they were blocked from doing so by lawyers in SOCOM over concerns over legality. These concerns may have included using publicly available information as intelligence sources upon the citizens of the U.S. Shaffer Interview on GSN

Shaffer's contentions are being followed up upon by Rep. Curt Weldon who believes that 9/11 could have been prevented if the information gained by Able Danger was properly dealt with.

...what has this to do with QUOTE: "Pretty clear that we had the information
in front of us that something was going on but that we failed to connect the
dots and see what was being planned."

All info was available - it´s no question of "putting dots together".
I mean, with a dead body on your feet, what dots do you have to
make until you realize that he´s dead?

 

[Piggy]

That sounds like the police force planned to shoot out the roofs of their own cruisers. I know a lot of people have a low opinion of the police, but that can't be right...

The vertical mounts were quick-release single racks which allowed a cop to grab the gun and be out of the vehicle with almost no delay, as opposed to a typical "gun rack" used by most hunters and ranchers, which is more awkward and slower, and therefore poses a greater risk to the cop.

 

[Piggy]

America is still a toddler after all. Give it time. And if your country survives the next 500 years, it may grow sensible yet.

One can only hope.

Of course, in some ways, we're not young at all. Our system of government was based, for the most part, on a very rational consideration of the best parts of other systems throughout history. I think that's why it's lasted so long, why ours is the oldest constitution currently in operation.

But in other ways, we're completely nuts, and entirely naive. Religion is a big part of that.

And unfortunately, we've elected a president with very little understanding of history and a great desire for personal and party power, and for the expansion of US hegemony.

Bad combination.

It really embarrasses me some of the things he says overseas, and how arrogant he is. I loved it when he called China an "emerging democracy" (as other US politicians have done, to be fair). China's not an "emerging" anything! They done emerged already.

I think the Aussies are the new Americans, in a way. They don't have our jingoism and fundamentalism (I recall Aussie co-workers being mystified by the sheer number of American flags everywhere -- "Wha's with awl thu flegs?"), but they're now the young, energetic kids on the world stage, and they have that sense of boundless innovation, the frontier mentality, and the larrikinism which (like wowserism, too) permeates the American social structure and is evident in some of our greatest wits like Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe (a noted hoaxter), Lenny Bruce, and of course Steve-O.

 

[Piggy]

9/11 has nothing to do with "hate against US-Freedom".

Agreed. That's one of the silliest bits of demagogic pap going around. As if Muslim men were sitting around in coffee houses in Riyadh saying, "I can't sleep while there is free press in Nebraska, and women can vote in West Virginia!"

It's so simplistic as to be absolutely childish.

 

[Piggy]

Regarding the sharing of information, we should keep in mind that certain intelligence agencies were highly restricted from sharing information as a direct result of the abuses of power under the Nixon administration, and during several administrations by FBI director Hoover, when government agencies were used to spy on political opponents (candidates, parties, the press) in order to blackmail them, and to sabotage and scuttle their efforts.

It's true that we could use some restructuring now, as the shortcomings of the "solutions" have become amply evident, but it is not heartening that the current president (who is ostensibly directing this restructuring) makes Nixon look like Gandhi when it comes to secrecy, dirty tricks, political attack-dogging, public deception, and government intrusion.

 

[Architect]

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

I'd double check if I were you - there are common law issues here. In the Scotland and latterly the rest of the UK the incorporation into law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) also effectively covered it, subject to the recognised restricted re: truth, accuracy, criminal incitement, etc.

 

[Architect]

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.

This is an area I always found fascinating, all the more so because some of the European educational systems covered it more than the US one. Was it Gore Vidal who described the War of Independence as "The First American Civil War"?

Also it's wrong the focus on Redcoats as the opponents.....the Royalist/Loyalist field included a broad range of Colonials, American Indian Groups, and so on. A right pickle, as they say.

I once met an educated American who didn't know about the Louisianna Purchase, which always made me wonder about how good history lessons were......

 

[Foolmewunz]

Piggy wrote....

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".

I believe you can take it a little further, actually. I believe we also tend to forget that the "Founding Fathers", to the government in power, were "terrorists" of their time. If the Ben Franklin quote about the well-armed lamb is accurate, and the statements and actions of Sam Adams and Patrick Henry are considered against the British status quo of the time, it's probably foolish to think that terrorism (although it was not known by such term - nor guerrilla warfare, either) was not considered in the framing of the Constitution.

Aside to Oliver - I think you are mistaking what interests you and the number of people posting to these sites as "popularity". If you want to know the sad state of public interest in politics, try the following. You can post any two topics separated by a comma (,) and see how the searches compare. The flat blue line on the bottom is "Loose Change". The great jumping (popular) red line is "Paris Hilton".
http://google.com/trends?q=loose+change,+paris+hilton&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

The last I heard on the subject, the most popular web searches were for Sex, Horoscopes, and I cannot recall the third.

 

[G-K-4]

I believe we also tend to forget that the "Founding Fathers", to the government in power, were "terrorists" of their time.

With some current (that is, 2006), U.S., legal definitions of "terrorism", I have to wonder if the Boston Tea Party could be included. It was, after all, destruction of property with the intent to influence the policies of a government. And no one (so far as I know) was hurt, but someone could have been hurt, what with all of those axes and everything.

The flat blue line on the bottom is "Loose Change". The great jumping (popular) red line is "Paris Hilton".

Which only goes to show that not all forms of USELESS are equal.

 

[gumboot]

Some of you seem to be broadening the definition of "terrorism".

The main point is it generates large levels of fear in the general population, forcing the government to give in to the terrorist's demands because of pressure from the plebs.

I don't see how armed rebellion can be seen as terrorism.

-Andrew

 

[Piggy]

Some of you seem to be broadening the definition of "terrorism".

The main point is it generates large levels of fear in the general population, forcing the government to give in to the terrorist's demands because of pressure from the plebs.

I don't see how armed rebellion can be seen as terrorism.

That's because you don't live in the US.

The definition has gotten very broad here lately.

The U.S. legal definition of terrorism is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) which states: "The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." The act contains a footnote explaining that noncombatant targets includes "military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty."

If you're not in a uniform, or if you're in the uniform of a militia rather than the national military, and you commit an act of violence for a political reason -- even if that reason is to assist one side in a war, or to remove occupiers from your country -- and civilians or off-duty military get hurt, you're a terrorist.

All Hamas fighters are therefore terrorists. (Why the militias we support in Iraq are not, that's anybody's guess.)

But as far as my earlier post, terroristic acts of the type you speak of were part of the colonial-Indian wars, on both sides.

However, I don't believe that the motive of a terroristic act must necessarily be to force a government to give in to specific demands on the basis of popular pressure. Terroristic acts can be used as a psychological ploy, as distractions/diversions, as expressions of anger, etc.