Press for truth!

[Oliver]

I´m sorry to let all questions of yours beside for a moment -
to give you (in a less confusion way) an idea what i´m talking
about. Remember: You asked how the holocaust happend? And
you answered this question. And i agree with your conclusion
about it, but you forgot one thing in your conclusion. ? - Later.

"People's minds" are irrelevant. All that matters is what the laws state, and what scientific study demonstrates. You cannot justify a demonstratably false claim simply because you can find people who believe it.

Peoples mind are relevant if a government needs the peoples
support! Right? For example: Going to war or changing laws.

No. What you're saying does not make sense.

Not yet, i see.

To make such an assessment is nothing more than speculation. Impossible to say. I suspect the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media.
I would argue that the majority do not consider ALL Muslims to be terrorists, but this is irrelevant. Muslim Terrorists do not wear a uniform.
-Andrew

Because you´re from New-Zealand, you suspect that something
like:

"the majority of "average" people regard Muslims with distrust and apprehension due to Islamic Terrorist actions. I also believe the majority
of "average" citizens will not admit this if asked by the media."

...could be in their minds.

Now if we speculate this further - and i also don´t like speculating, too,
Andrew - But if we speculate that New Zealands average people may think
this way:

What do american average people think as direct victims of 9/11?
I know you don´t know it, Andrew. Try to speculate on this one.

________________________________________________________
To the rest of people in here:
What might americans think - as personal victims of 9/11?

QUOTE: What do you believe does the average
citizen from an english-spoken country think about
islam or muslims? I´m not talking about higher educated
people and i´m not trying to speculate. What do you think
is the "gerneral mind" there? Are there automatic
connections in these minds from "muslims - to radical
muslims - to terrorists"? In a average mind, not yours?

 

[gumboot]

Peoples mind are relevant if a government needs the peoples
support! Right? For example: Going to war or changing laws.

That's not what you were talking about. We were talking about whether a given action broke international law, or whether given materials posed a health risk.

The reality of these things about is entirely independent of "people's minds".

Now if we speculate this further - and i also don´t like speculating, too,
Andrew - But if we speculate that New Zealands average people may think
this way:

You asked about "english-speaking countries", not New Zealand. Last I checked, they spoke english in the United States. I believe the average New Zealander has a higher regard for Muslims, because unlike in countries like the USA and UK, New Zealand has not been exposed in any significant level to Islamic Extremism.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

That´s why i left the laws beside, Andrew - it confuses you.

You asked about "english-speaking countries", not New Zealand. Last I checked, they spoke english in the United States. I believe the average New Zealander has a higher regard for Muslims, because unlike in countries like the USA and UK, New Zealand has not been exposed in any significant level to Islamic Extremism.
-Andrew

I said "english spoken countries" because some people in here
feel upset if i would say american people. I´m sorry for that.

Keep your thoughts beside for a moment and think about:

Is it important for Governments, that peoples minds are behind
them to take actions like war, changing laws or something
important like that?

 

[gumboot]

That´s why i left the laws beside, Andrew - it confuses you.

It does not. Your failure to express yourself is confusing me.

I said "english spoken countries" because some people in here
feel upset if i would say american people. I´m sorry for that.

Yes. As a member of an english speaking country that isn't America it would annoy me too. Do you want to know what Americans think? Or what members of "english speaking countries" think? Make up your mind.

Keep your thoughts beside for a moment and think about:

See any problem here?

Is it important for Governments, that peoples minds are behind
them to take actions like war, changing laws or something
important like that?

In a democracy? Yes.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

In a democracy? Yes. -Andrew

This is my failure, Andrew - it´s the language barrier in here.
And i appreciate for it.

But back to the conversation itself:

If it´s imortant for a democratic Government, that
peoples are behind their leaders:

I´ve heard about all the fear-mongering within the united
states - even if i did´nt made this expierence in that scale
here in germany. And it´s also present in a lower scale.

If the "innocent" minds of people in New Zealand, wich are
not effected by an islamic threat, may think the way you
described it:

What do you think, may the american "average peoples mind"
think about this issue - as a part of it because threats and
their personal expierience with 9/11 and the whole terrorist-
issue?

It´s pure specualating, but maybe you can give it a try.

 

[gumboot]

If it´s imortant for a democratic Government, that
peoples are behind their leaders:

I´ve heard about all the fear-mongering within the united
states - even if i did´nt made this expierence in that scale
here in germany. And it´s also present in a lower scale.

"Fear-mongering" is a fairly subjective term. The government of the United Kingdom in the 1930's considered Winston Churchill to be a fear-mongerer.

What do you think, may the american "average peoples mind"
think about this issue - as a part of it because threats and
their personal expierience with 9/11 and the whole terrorist-
issue?

It´s pure specualating, but maybe you can give it a try.

Look, I havea lready told you my thoughts for "english speaking countries". I will not take it any further than that. I am tired of your games. It feels suspiciously to me like you want me to say "The Average American hates muslims and thinks all muslims are terrorists".

You might think that. It wouldn't surprise me if your media is CLAIMING that. But I don't believe it for a second.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

"The Average American hates muslims and thinks all muslims are terrorists". You might think that. It wouldn't surprise me if your media is CLAIMING that. But I don't believe it for a second.
-Andrew

No, i don´t think that americans hate muslims or
that they think they´re all terrorists.

That´s not what i try to explain. I also think about
"giving up" to explain it any further to you, just because
theres to much missunderstanding in here and you try
to explain yourself instead following the discussion to
the point where everything starts to make sense.

Maybe we should defer the discussion or - if you wish
to, stop it completely.

 

[gumboot]

That´s not what i try to explain. I also think about
"giving up" to explain it any further to you, just because
theres to much missunderstanding in here and you try
to explain yourself instead following the discussion to
the point where everything starts to make sense.

The problem, Oliver, is you are not making sense. By that, I mean linguistically. Certainly your grasp on English is better than my grasp on German, but nonetheless, we are not capable of communicating because we do not share a common language.

Let us start again shall we?

CLE posted a link to a video. I watched that video. I concluded it was poorly made, heavily biased, and full of factual errors and speculation.

You seem to think otherwise.

Discuss.

-Andrew

 

[Oliver]

CLE posted a link to a video. I watched that video. I concluded it was poorly made, heavily biased, and full of factual errors and speculation.

You seem to think otherwise.

Discuss.

-Andrew

Well, Andrew. It´s fine to see that you still take
me as a serious partner to discuss issues. It´s
hard to start from the point i tried to discuss the
"holocaust thing and the mocking victims thing".

My head is also ringing because of our discussion,
maybe yours because of trying to understand and
mine because of trying to explain.

The discussion itself had nothing to do with the
video after shifting to the mocking and holocaust
thing. So i´m sorry for the people who thought,
that it had something to do with each other.

So my suggestion is to defer the discussion - so
i have some time to formulate and to summarize
our conversation to a point where we could restart
it - right now my head is not capable of this.

I have some things to do right now, but let me thank
you that you´re a very sceptic, but openminded
heart, Andrew.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[Brainster]

Okay, I started watching this film today, and have my comments up about the first ten minutes at the blog. Suffice to say that it's pretty shoddy when you look at the "top" questions that they ask in this segment.

 

[Oliver]

Okay, I started watching this film today, and have my comments up about the first ten minutes at the blog. Suffice to say that it's pretty shoddy when you look at the "top" questions that they ask in this segment.

You´re right, the first part of the movie is not very usefull. Did you see the whole movie?

 

[T.A.M.]

I have watched it all.

The movie is strong not for what it says, so much as what it doesn't say. The "truth" movements biggest killer is their outrageousness. On the 5th anniversary they got out there on the MSM and basicly people laughed at them. "No planes" hit the towers "a missile" hit the pentagon. joe public dismissed them.

Now here, here is a movie that makes the USG look bad, but does so in a more subtle way. They use all the tricks...the music, the sympathy card (The jersey girls - you cannot dislike them, even if you wanted to). They bring up alot of issues through out the movie that leave you wondering, especially if you are Mr. uninformed Joe public...the creators know this. The strongest section I believe, has to do with the "why we didnt get the bad guys" which comes about halfway or 2/3rds into the film.

Overall, it is weaker than LC in terms of its accusations, but much stronger in terms of its appeal/acceptance factor...which is the most dangerous thing about the film.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

I have watched it all.

The movie is strong not for what it says, so much as what it doesn't say. The "truth" movements biggest killer is their outrageousness. On the 5th anniversary they got out there on the MSM and basicly people laughed at them. "No planes" hit the towers "a missile" hit the pentagon. joe public dismissed them.

Now here, here is a movie that makes the USG look bad, but does so in a more subtle way. They use all the tricks...the music, the sympathy card (The jersey girls - you cannot dislike them, even if you wanted to). They bring up alot of issues through out the movie that leave you wondering, especially if you are Mr. uninformed Joe public...the creators know this. The strongest section I believe, has to do with the "why we didnt get the bad guys" which comes about halfway or 2/3rds into the film.

Overall, it is weaker than LC in terms of its accusations, but much stronger in terms of its appeal/acceptance factor...which is the most dangerous thing about the film.

TAM

Yes, this is the weaken point of the documentary - in contrast to pure, emotionless facts like in the spiegel-documentary.

May i ask you, Tam:

What points are unanswered in your mind about 9/11?

- Oliver

 

[T.A.M.]

Oliver:

Points that I would like clarification and or more information on wrt 9/11

1. Pakistani connection - how high up did it go. Are we protecting the money men in order to maintain Pakistan as an ally?

2. Why OBL escaped at Tora Bora - Did they allow him to leave, or did he just weasel out? If they allowed him, then why?

TAM

 

[Brainster]

Overall, it is weaker than LC in terms of its accusations, but much stronger in terms of its appeal/acceptance factor...which is the most dangerous thing about the film.

TAM

I agree. One of the most appalling things about this mockumentary is the filmmakers' use of the family members; allowing them to do the lying and exaggerating. I've already touched on one such instance (the 2 hours that the hijacked planes were supposedly flying around), but there are more within the first 20 minutes. For example a fireman's mom says:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

Believe it or not, she's talking about the collapse of the towers (although the movie sandwiches this between discussions of WTC 7). The most studied collapses in history and she thinks nobody was interested?

Bob McIlvaine, a longtime 9-11 Denier, (he was on Cynthia McKinney's nutty Citizen's Commission) claims that the Lewinsky investigation cost $100 million. Of course, the true figure is more like $80 million, which included the cost of the Whitewater investigation as well.

Ordinarily I'd have no trouble describing these lies as what they are. But it's a little trickier when you're talking about family members of the victims--you run the risk of coming off like Dylan "laugh in their faces" Avery.

They also include plenty of inside nudges to the 9-11 Deniers (like the focus on WTC 7).

 

[Pardalis]

They also include plenty of inside nudges to the 9-11 Deniers (like the focus on WTC 7).

Yeah, what the heck was that about? They don't even go back to it in the film. The film might have good points (like the Pakistani connection), but that WTC 7 business really blows it.

[political derail]

It's the same thing with any anti-Bush movement, for me. Even if they are right in alot of ways, they somehow allow this nonesense. I don't know if it's because they believe it, or simply allow it because it helps their cause. Either way I think it's wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn't help their cause and it makes me want to ignore their entire movement altogether.

[back on topic]

 

[T.A.M.]

The problem for me, is what I know. It makes it easy for me to dismiss alot of the "nudges" that are so obvious to you and I.

From the perspective of a fence sitter, or a newbie to the issue, it is much different. To them this movie will come off as a powerful (via the sympathy factor) documentary that asks some serious questions that have gone unanswered. All of us here admit that it is impossible to deny the requests of the victim families, and the filmmakers know this, and maximize this factor.

Scary film, despite most of the arguments, from OUR perspective, being weak.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

I wonder that there are no english, on pure facts based documentaries out there or am i wrong and i missed them?

BBC had a good docu called "In the Footsteps of OBL" some time ago but i never heard about a deeper, neutral look into the backgrounds of 9/11 beside the spiegel-docu in german.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am sure there are many fact based documentaries on 9/11. the trouble, is that the "truth" movement refers to all of them as "official story nonsense". PBS has a few, all of which are rejected by the CT crowd.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

I am sure there are many fact based documentaries on 9/11. the trouble, is that the "truth" movement refers to all of them as "official story nonsense". PBS has a few, all of which are rejected by the CT crowd.

TAM

Thank you for the PBS-hint, TAM.

Whoever want´s to learn more about the 9/11 backgrounds:
http://www.shoppbs.org/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=18680417412&keywords=Al+Qaeda&view=all