Loose Change - Part IV

[Cuddles]

So what is this all about. Exposing the characters, or exposing the lies they are presumably telling? I would have thought the last. That's debunking. That's mostly not what MarkyX is doing in the video.

The lies have been exposed, but people chose to ignore this. Pointing out the sort of person they are listening may help them recognise the lies for what they are.

 

[twinstead]

So what is this all about. Exposing the characters, or exposing the lies they are presumably telling? I would have thought the last. That's debunking. That's mostly not what MarkyX is doing in the video.

I don't 100% agree with MarkyX's method perhaps, but it is borne out of frustration that we all feel, and that I can understand. The only thing worse than an unqualified group using half-truths, bad science, lies, rumor, emotion, and ideology to accuse people of mass murder, is a group doing it in an arrogant, condescending, and disrespectful way.

How do you think the family of the victims of that day feel about it?

 

[brumsen]

I'd say you hit the Mark, MarkyX...I think the intesity level has gone up a few notches....

Could these monumental pricks do more to "crank up the sentiments" of thinking, caring people?

Reading the comments from people who are newly exposed to this material, it seems they're furious at what's being said. Good.

So errm who cranks up the intensity level here?

The lies have been exposed, but people chose to ignore this. Pointing out the sort of person they are listening may help them recognise the lies for what they are.

I take it that that's a 'yes' to my question "do you really expect the discussion to improve as a result of this character assassination?". Oh dear. I have nothing more to say to this

 

[Belz...]

My fat man has you down in his book.

Who ?

[qimg]http://www.angelic.org/highlander/img/np-ap.jpg[/qimg]

What the...

 

[MarkyX]

I most definitely agree. (I have watched the first part, and am currently undecided whether to watch the rest.)

I think much of the stuff done by people on this board is fairly decent as a response to Loose Change, but I feel that performing character assassination - even if the people targeted lend themselves to it quite easily because of what they say - is really not the way to go. Really Not.

Do you really expect the discussion to become any better by cranking up the sentiments? Answer honestly, now.

You have to understand brumsen, that Dylan, Alex Jones, and other members of the 9/11 Deniers have already stated their positions by their actions. Alex Jones makes videos labelling the government as devil worshippers who sacrifice children to a huge owl. Dylan Avery refuses to debate with Mark Robets, endores the action of his admins banning second opinions, and is making a documentary using already DEBUNKED logic and non-experts on a day of memorial.

Simply put, they don't want opponents. They don't want to debate. They are not interested in facts, but character assassination that an audience is willing to pay for.

Look at Alex Jones' movie and you can see his political side pop up like a children's book. He claims to be a patriot but dislikes every aspect from his country, whether it's the police officers (can't have above 80 IQ to join) or Sports (GUMBERMENT PLOT).

The Loose Change crew...Dylan couldn't even hit 2nd tier film school and was a well-known troll in Little Green Footballs suggesting a coverup before his movie was released. He was against the GUMBERMENT since day 1 of his movie.

Then we look at the low level masses. Kids or adults ignorant of history or refuse to do their own research. They look for bits of evidence and twist it so they can yell "Inside Job, Inside Job", and slap yet another BUSH = HITLER image on their god damn myspace. If these theorists actually read Debunking911, Myths911, Screw Loose Change blog, and my SCL video site, they wouldn't be a movement.

How many times has Mark Roberts, Brainster, JamesB, and other members around here been accused of working for the government? I used to get a threat EVERY SINGLE DAY a few weeks ago.

They don't want to debate, they don't want to research, and they don't respect the victims (lol Mark Bingham). They are into the theories mainly for character assassination, whether it is another reason to compare Bush to a lovable German leader or government officials working for an owl.

Character assassination is the only language they understand and yesterday, I spoke it clearly to them.

 

[Gravy]

So errm who cranks up the intensity level here?



I take it that that's a 'yes' to my question "do you really expect the discussion to improve as a result of this character assassination?". Oh dear. I have nothing more to say to this

How is anyone's character being assassinated? Are you defending what these creeps say?

eta: Want to know what character assassination is? Insinuating that Bernard Brown deliberately sent his son to die on flight 77. Again, why does it offend you that we point these things out?

 

[brumsen]

Character assassination is the only language they understand and the only language they are willing to speak. And yesterday, I spoke it clearly to them.

Like you, I am sorry at how ugly it all has become. But now look: you have allowed these threats and insults to get to you, and have lowered yourself to the same level. Is that what you wanted?

The US have a Very Serious problem here. Insufficient level of education to enable the masses to see through nonsense conspiracy mongering; and a government that trades in cover-ups and intransparency. Quite an explosive combination.

 

[Gravy]

Like you, I am sorry at how ugly it all has become. But now look: you have allowed these threats and insults to get to you, and have lowered yourself to the same level. Is that what you wanted?

Again, how is anyone's character being assassinated by them being quoted in context?

 

[brumsen]

How is anyone's character being assassinated? Are you defending what these creeps say?

No.

eta: Want to know what character assassination is? Insinuating that Bernard Brown deliberately sent his son to die on flight 77. Again, why does it offend you that we point these things out?

Character assassination, in my book, is making somebody black and thus suggesting that they can't be saying anything true.
They may be despicable, I don't care; what help is it to point it out?

The Bernard Brown thing: it is a claim for which he basically immediately admits that he has no basis for it. OK - just a baseless claim then. Perhaps a despicable one to make, but yet again I don't see what good it does to point that out.

 

[MarkyX]

Like you, I am sorry at how ugly it all has become. But now look: you have allowed these threats and insults to get to you, and have lowered yourself to the same level. Is that what you wanted?

Of course not, but you make it sound like this was my first option that I picked (points to his signature).

It has come down to this though. This wouldn't have happened if Dylan did respectable research and the movement was willing to debate instead of label. Comparing me to Hitler (or saying I'm worse) while masturbating at the thought of slitting my throat does NOT win you brownie points.

 

[Brainster]

I most definitely agree. (I have watched the first part, and am currently undecided whether to watch the rest.)

I think much of the stuff done by people on this board is fairly decent as a response to Loose Change, but I feel that performing character assassination - even if the people targeted lend themselves to it quite easily because of what they say - is really not the way to go. Really Not.

Do you really expect the discussion to become any better by cranking up the sentiments? Answer honestly, now.

Any movement which aspires to national prominence and recognition must police itself. This, the 9-11 Denial Movement has refused to do, opting instead for the big tent strategy. But you can't complain then when we point out the extremists in your midst, just as Republicans can't complain when Democrats point to Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson.

Yes, the discussion will become better by cranking up the sentiments. Why? Because Fetzer and Avery and Rowe and Bermas need to learn where the hot buttons are that tick everybody off. I watched through 3/4 of Loose Change the first time, just rolling my eyes. And then they started on Flight 93 and the cellphone calls and I hit the roof.

BTW, this video is now all over the blogs. Dylan's finally getting the attention he wanted. I assume and hope that the only damage will be to his ego and reputation.

 

[c0rbin]

The Taliban did not fight in the war against the Soviets. They weren't formed until the mid 90s, mostly from Afghan students studying in Pakistani madrassas. Thus the name Taliban, coming from the Arabic word for student, "Talib"

Indeed.

A good book (a little dry, though stuffed with reasoned, on-the-ground info) is "Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...ef=sr_1_5/102-8340032-4412127?ie=UTF8&s=books

It covers briefly the historical background, Afgahnistan's history, the rise of the Taliban and touches on OBL.

Ahmed Rashid is a journalist by training and the writing never veers from that background. It possible suffers a bit from that dry-ness as a read, but like I said, full of good info--fact-based and strait-forward

 

[brumsen]

Of course not, but you make it sound like this was my first option that I picked (points to his signature).

Did I? Not intentionally, anyway. Then again, I don't see the difference that it makes. My point remains.

 

[Gravy]

They may be despicable, I don't care; what help is it to point it out?

They claim to be making a documentary. I have heard them claim that it's "100% true."

The Bernard Brown thing: it is a claim for which he basically immediately admits that he has no basis for it. OK - just a baseless claim then. Perhaps a despicable one to make, but yet again I don't see what good it does to point that out.

See above. When somone claims to be making a documentary about something as serious as 9/11 but chooses to make wild accusations and chooses not to do the least bit of fact-checking, and claims to have sympathy for the victims while continually smearing them, I think that should be pointed out.

That's not character assassination. That's presenting reality. No one is putting words in their mouths.

 

[brumsen]

Yes, the discussion will become better by cranking up the sentiments. Why? Because Fetzer and Avery and Rowe and Bermas need to learn where the hot buttons are that tick everybody off. I watched through 3/4 of Loose Change the first time, just rolling my eyes. And then they started on Flight 93 and the cellphone calls and I hit the roof.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your explanation.

 

[brumsen]

That's not character assassination. That's presenting reality. No one is putting words in their mouths.

It is presenting reality in a certain way with a certain intention; namely to use things they say which are likely to stir up emotions in order to cast doubt on other things that they also say. I don't think the intention is right.

I wasn't accusing anybody of putting words in their mouths.

 

[Stellafane]

So errm who cranks up the intensity level here?



I take it that that's a 'yes' to my question "do you really expect the discussion to improve as a result of this character assassination?". Oh dear. I have nothing more to say to this

Fine sentiments -- have you similarly chastised johndoex in the LC forum for threatening to shoot billzilla? Because in my book, that's vastly worse than anything I've encountered in this forum. Or is there one set of decorum rules for CT'ers, and another, far stricter one for everyone else?

Really, this "holier than thou" act is getting a bit tired, brumsen.

ETA: Since CT'ers are accusing literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people of mass murder with absolutely no proof, even a father of murdering his own son, doesn't that by itself constitute character assassination? Thus by your lights, CT'ers shouldn't even be doing what they're doing?

 

[brumsen]

Fine sentiments -- have you similarly chastised johndoex in the LC forum for threatening to shoot billzilla? Because in my book, that's vastly worse than anything I've encountered in this forum. Or is there one set of decorum rules for CT'ers, and another, far stricter one for everyone else?

Really, this "holier than thou" act is getting a bit tired, brumsen.

Are you suggesting I should become active in another forum in order to do this chastising? Get involved in another discussion just to do that? I am not policing the whole internet, thanks.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I most definitely agree. (I have watched the first part, and am currently undecided whether to watch the rest.)

I think much of the stuff done by people on this board is fairly decent as a response to Loose Change, but I feel that performing character assassination - even if the people targeted lend themselves to it quite easily because of what they say - is really not the way to go. Really Not.

Do you really expect the discussion to become any better by cranking up the sentiments? Answer honestly, now.

I think this is worthy of a thoughtful response. First, let me start by clarifying what "character assassination" is:

Character assassination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is correctly likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death.

In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.

In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children, is disrespected by his former co-workers, or routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

Now, by that definition, I don't think what MarkyX put together qualifies as character assassination. We can discuss this aspect further if you disagree with my assessment.

What these leaves us with is the question of whether fighting the 9/11 CT'ers using their own methods of propoganda, multi-media, and presentation is the right thing to do. Though I am not 100% sold on the idea, I think it has merit. Reason being; the appeal of their productions is to a target audience. This is not the same audience as the "Scholars for Truth" or other, more academic, aspects of the movement.

Since this is the case, I think our best bet at getting people to at least realize that LC and its ilk are not the be all, end all, of information on the subject is to produce material that has the same appeal, but shows this. We've seen clearly on the LC board, and from CT'ers who have come here that countering movies with hard science, though accurate, doesn't get through very well. If it did, we would be facing off against Jones and the other Scholars. We can keep presenting the hard science, the facts, the "boring" part of understanding what happened, but for some we are going to have to break through the glitz and get them to consider that there is more information before we can begin presenting that information. One way to do so, is to show that Dylan, et al's, actions are not as altruistic and pure as they try to make it seem.

Additionally, I don't think we're falling into the trap of using ad hom attacks because the information being presented about the movement is relevent. Dylan talking from both sides of his mouth, AFP's history revisionist ties, etc These directly affect the credibility of what they say.

Just my US$0.02

 

[Stellafane]

Are you suggesting I should become active in another forum in order to do this chastising? Get involved in another discussion just to do that? I am not policing the whole internet, thanks.

If you have any interest in truly improving the tone of discourse, you will indeed go to the Loose Change forum and chastise them there. Othrwise, your motives for posting here are very suspect. Why tell one side they need to improve their manners, and not the other side, who is guilty of far more frequent and serious transgressions? It appears you're yelling at us, and doing absolutely nothing to similarly improve the behavior of CT'ers. Seems a little one sided to me. Why come here at all then?