Propaganda - The 9/11 truth variety (commentary)

[T.A.M.]

Was the Wesley Clark quote you cited reproduced in its entirety on the patriotsquestion911 site, or did you have to go dig up the original source of a cherry-picked fragment?

Here is the quote they give at the site:

"I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time." http://securingamerica.com/node/692

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

They do not post the comments he makes just before this part, where he states what qualities are desired in a good president etc...., they have also spliced together two parts from two paragraphs to make them look like one continued piece...

As I posted in the OP, here is the ORIGINAL INTERVIEW QUOTE, IN CONTEXT (TRhe parts they quoted in bold AS THEY APPEARED)...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I just want to make it clear, George, I know there's a lot of speculation on 2008 and there's a lot of great people out there who are lining up and testing the waters and setting up exploratory committees. I'm very proud to have had the opportunity to run in 2004; I did learn a lot. And if you look at what qualities are required in a president today, this is a time where Americans are engaged and responding to foreign affairs like never before. The war on terror, the war in Iraq, the port issue, global trade, um, the avian flu…I mean, it's just…we cannot wall off the outside world so I think it's very important that Americans look to people who've got some experience. Having said that, my focus is on 2006 and helping the right Democrats get into office because
I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works, we need Congress to do its job, we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch, we need <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: Like what?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.

Of course, the word "misused" is the one they are trying to emphasize, but we should not forget that the meaning of the word can be either of "abusive use of OR incorrect use of". Clark probably meant the latter.

I will say though, that at least they provide a link where you can go view the entire transcript.

TAM

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Truthers are total propaganda machines. I tried stating this in mjd's post about propaganda last month.

What's amazing is that they don't realize that what they're spewing is propaganda.

Of course when you're in the cult of truth, your rational thought is surgically removed during initiation.

 

[JimBenArm]

Truthers are total propaganda machines. I tried stating this in mjd's post about propaganda last month.

What's amazing is that they don't realize that what they're spewing is propaganda.

Of course when you're in the cult of truth, your rational thought is surgically removed during initiation.

Is that where Lisa gets the brains she eats? Leftovers from Twoofer initiations?

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Is that where Lisa gets the brains she eats? Leftovers from Twoofer initiations?

I'd say their rational thinking lobes were atrophied to begin worth. They'd have the consistency of jerky.

 

[GreNME]

How many times has a truth movement member come to this site and called us "Neocon Propaganda shills"? How many times have we been accused of pushing their agenda, pushing the OT?

Maybe it's because I haven't been reading all of the threads in this past month I've been around, but let me see... carry the... yep, I count exactly zero. Can't find any case of that here in this subforum. I did a quick search for the phrase "Neocon Propaganda shills" and the word "shill" on the forum, and even that yielded mostly results from a while back, and the few I checked turned out to be people joking and using the word "shill" in their post. "Neocon Propaganda shills" actually only yielded this thread, actually.

Like I said, maybe I just missed them, but I think this is getting pretty heavy into the realm of hyperbole when some of the rest of what you point out about cherrypicking quotes is quite relevant.


----

There is not the slightest reason to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. They are lying professionally and are opposed to everything we value, TAM, as we have established in the recent torture thread on the Politics subforum. All those people have doubts about the official account of 9/11 and you should join them. Labels like LIHOP and MIHOP are devisive. You can't take the easy way out by condemning unexperienced kids at the Loose Change board because they fall for Rovian counter-intelligence techniques.

A million snake oil sellers are irrelevant. This subforum as a collective is guilty of branding all those people mentioned on that site as "kooks" and "conspiracy theorists", not the other way around. Debunking frauds is great, but stop being cowards and join our efforts to bring these criminals down.

You are needed.

Childlike Empress, I can understand your sense of urgency on this, but the thing that you need to understand is that each one of those snake oil salesmen are more relevant to the "truth" movement than you and many others are willing to admit. They don't just poison the ideological well, they also actively work to spread misinformation and spread it as if it were truth. Face it: accusations of disinformation-purveyors is common, and it is exactly those who are the loudest of the snake-oil salesmen who are the ones engaging in it. No government conspiracy, but you don't need a government to spoil a group with dishonesty and deceit (politicians are just professionals at it).

If you truly feel the way this quote seems to suggest, then you need to consider that the later posts by you on this are unnecessary and are working against this plea. As much as you may not want it to be, the snake oil salesmen and the crowds of irrational youngsters who are relatively inexperienced in political action (which reflects in their behavior) are exactly why so few individuals who would also like to demand some accountability for government behavior-- not overthrow the government, not accuse every politician of NWO membership, and other extreme measures-- are interested in identifying with these groups that pretty much self-identify with the overarching "truth" movement.

Look at it this way: you're not going to find popular support when you're looking for people to hang. That makes people uncomfortable because that's one of the behaviors that a lot of us have a problem with about post-9/11 agencies' behavior. We want that to stop, not more of the same with a changing of the proverbial guard.

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe it's because I haven't been reading all of the threads in this past month I've been around, but let me see... carry the... yep, I count exactly zero. Can't find any case of that here in this subforum. I did a quick search for the phrase "Neocon Propaganda shills" and the word "shill" on the forum, and even that yielded mostly results from a while back, and the few I checked turned out to be people joking and using the word "shill" in their post. "Neocon Propaganda shills" actually only yielded this thread, actually.

Like I said, maybe I just missed them, but I think this is getting pretty heavy into the realm of hyperbole when some of the rest of what you point out about cherrypicking quotes is quite relevant.

lol....I probably shouldn't have put the words in quotes, as they were not intended as an exact statement of what we have been called. Ask any member who has been here for a while, and they will agree that we get called such things, worded differently but with the same meaning and intent, ALL THE TIME.

----

Childlike Empress, I can understand your sense of urgency on this, but the thing that you need to understand is that each one of those snake oil salesmen are more relevant to the "truth" movement than you and many others are willing to admit. They don't just poison the ideological well, they also actively work to spread misinformation and spread it as if it were truth. Face it: accusations of disinformation-purveyors is common, and it is exactly those who are the loudest of the snake-oil salesmen who are the ones engaging in it. No government conspiracy, but you don't need a government to spoil a group with dishonesty and deceit (politicians are just professionals at it).

Well said....thank you.

If you truly feel the way this quote seems to suggest, then you need to consider that the later posts by you on this are unnecessary and are working against this plea. As much as you may not want it to be, the snake oil salesmen and the crowds of irrational youngsters who are relatively inexperienced in political action (which reflects in their behavior) are exactly why so few individuals who would also like to demand some accountability for government behavior-- not overthrow the government, not accuse every politician of NWO membership, and other extreme measures-- are interested in identifying with these groups that pretty much self-identify with the overarching "truth" movement.

Look at it this way: you're not going to find popular support when you're looking for people to hang. That makes people uncomfortable because that's one of the behaviors that a lot of us have a problem with about post-9/11 agencies' behavior. We want that to stop, not more of the same with a changing of the proverbial guard.

Also well said.

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.

Funny that you would include a known Holocaust denier among those you consider reputable, non-"cointelpro" conspiracist luminaries.

Shame on you for countenancing anti-Semitic filth.

 

[GreNME]

lol....I probably shouldn't have put the words in quotes, as they were not intended as an exact statement of what we have been called. Ask any member who has been here for a while, and they will agree that we get called such things, worded differently but with the same meaning and intent, ALL THE TIME.

You know, when it comes to other forums talking about this one, I'm sure you're right. At least, the two threads I've seen recently here talking about the LC forum seem to show it. But I haven't actually seen even a close approximation to such behavior by people who are actually members of this forum. Yeah, a few are frustrating in their insistence to ignore the possibility that their conclusions might not be correct, especially a few who insist on it. But they aren't actually saying what the threads reference over on LC forums are saying, at least not in this forum that I've seen.

Is a direct opponent to the LC forums and similar 9/11 forums what this subforum of JREF exists for? Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds as a new member, but as much as I am interested in talking about the subject matter that gets discussed here I don't have the stomach for forum wars.

Also:

we get called such things, worded differently but with the same meaning and intent, ALL THE TIME.

Yeah, and a good portion of people in this forum call them such things as insane people, nutjobs, idiots, and I've even seen a thread actually saying that those "twoofers" are helping terrorists. Hey, I can verbally throw down as well as the next guy (I've been accused of worse), but isn't this kind of like the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I'm a NEOCON NWO SHILL: http://femacamper.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/bury-the-trolls/ (look for SpaceMonkeyZero)

According to their paranoid ramblings. I'm a paid shill to bury their ron paul and truther stories on Digg.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Funny that you would include a known Holocaust denier among those you consider reputable, non-"cointelpro" conspiracist luminaries.

Shame on you for countenancing anti-Semitic filth.

Hufschmid is not on the reputable list. Read my post again and try to understand it. Your accusation is impertinent.

@GreNME: Unfortunately you are right with most of what you've said to me. I know it is a very dodgy situation. I tried to mediate between the extremes and the people at which it was directed know me good enough to understand that i sometimes use exaggaration and broad statements as an instrument. At least i hope that that's the case.

 

[Pardalis]

Childlike, instead of whinging, why don't you participate in the discussions about 9/11 and articulate clearly your opinion on the different conspiracy theories?

 

[T.A.M.]

Is a direct opponent to the LC forums and similar 9/11 forums what this subforum of JREF exists for? Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds as a new member, but as much as I am interested in talking about the subject matter that gets discussed here I don't have the stomach for forum wars.

Also:


Yeah, and a good portion of people in this forum call them such things as insane people, nutjobs, idiots, and I've even seen a thread actually saying that those "twoofers" are helping terrorists. Hey, I can verbally throw down as well as the next guy (I've been accused of worse), but isn't this kind of like the pot calling the kettle black?

1. Even though alot of what became the CT subforum stemmed from an opposition to the movie Loose Change, and even though in many ways the LC Forum and 9/11 Blogger get a lot of comments made about them, I would not say that it is a "Forum War" per say. I would say that the JREF CT subforum gets as much or more grief from the LCF and 9/11 Blogger, to the point where the term JREFer has become as much of a curse word to the truthers, as "twoofer" has become such for the debunkers.

2. I think that a large part of the posting that goes on here is a means of combating the lies the truth movement spews wrt 9/11, and in that regard it is opposition...I mean it is a place to discuss and debate the issues, but it is a skeptics site, and there is no doubt the VAST, VAST majority of posters here are 9/11 truth debunkers.

3. I do not think there is much you could do to "overstep" your bounds here at the JREF. As long as you do not break your TOS agreement, you are free to say pretty much anything here. Intelligent commentary based in reality is encouraged here.

4. It is more like "calling it as the see it", but you are right, a lot of name calling does go on. The crowd gets rowdy every now and then. Usually someone will soon enough call for civility, before the mods come in and do it themselves. Of course labeling is a little different then name calling.

TAM

 

[Drudgewire]

According to their paranoid ramblings. I'm a paid shill to bury their ron paul and truther stories on Digg.

You FIEND!! Don't you know the Internet is the only place anyone takes either of them seriously?!

 

[lordofwaffles]

What I find distrubing,

I've tried to post here before, and it always ends with some form of technical error. If this works, I'll be amazed. Knowing my luck however, it'll work to the point where it sextuple-posts, in an annoying flashy font.

However, as to what I find disturbing is the blind leap many anti-Bush types make to the "truth movement." It is one thing to dislike policy, or even personalities, but to simply accept something because it jives with your world view is kinda stupid. Well, not kinda, as much as really stupid. If you're going to question the events of 9-11, by all means, go forth and ask questions. However, hold your own theories to the exact same level of scrutiny as you hold for the official story.

I, for one find it entirely more likely that Islamic extremists attacked us (seeing as they've done that in the past), in a manner that lined up with the weakest points of our security apparatus (partly by design, partly by whatever sick forces guide terrible events), than any other theory I've seen presented.

Really. This is the same government that can't spell my name right half the time (it's six letters long, pronounced phonetically). It's the same government that makes me use a spotter when pulling out a vehicle from the parking lot. I strongly doubt, even if in the blackest of hearts a MIHOP (ha, first time I've used that, it's kinda cool) attack was desired, the ability to execute it (let alone execute it in total secrecy) is totally lacking.

As the original point of this thread, propaganda is a common theme in any society. However, as anyone with half a brainstem will know, it's the propaganda closest to the truth that will defeat the propaganda based on distortion. The 911 truther crowd is unskilled enough to leave little doubt as to where and what they've distorted.

 

[LashL]

<snip>I've tried to post here before, and it always ends with some form of technical error. If this works, I'll be amazed. Knowing my luck however, it'll work to the point where it sextuple-posts, in an annoying flashy font.

Ta-dah! It worked just fine. Welcome, lordofwaffles. (Does your user name have anything to do with IHOP?)

It could be that your technical difficulties were a result of trying to post links or quoting a post that had links in it (because you have to have 15 posts before you can post links as part of spam-management, I believe). Or it could have been some other glitch, in which case, the appropriate response is to "Blame Lisa".

In any event, welcome to the sub-forum. That's an excellent first post.

 

[lordofwaffles]

Danke.

It's actually a reference to distant ages, many moons ago when I was in boy scouts. Finding that all cool names had been taken, our squad (I think thats what we were) dubbed itself the "rabid waffles" and as their squad leader, I deemed myself "The Lord of the Waffles."

I was 12 (my god I feel almost dead now) and thought it was cool. I've kept it as a bit of an alias for online uses.

Nice to finally be able to speak here. I've been lurking for a while, watching the wonders of no-planers and magic missile/sky warrior combo attacks. It's been really hard not replying to the madness.

 

[GreNME]

1. Even though alot of what became the CT subforum stemmed from an opposition to the movie Loose Change, and even though in many ways the LC Forum and 9/11 Blogger get a lot of comments made about them, I would not say that it is a "Forum War" per say. I would say that the JREF CT subforum gets as much or more grief from the LCF and 9/11 Blogger, to the point where the term JREFer has become as much of a curse word to the truthers, as "twoofer" has become such for the debunkers.

I realize the "popularity" of the 9/11 conspiracies, but there are loads of other conspiracies out there that could probably do with even a portion of the treatment 9/11 truthers have gotten as far as disseminating facts.

2. I think that a large part of the posting that goes on here is a means of combating the lies the truth movement spews wrt 9/11, and in that regard it is opposition...I mean it is a place to discuss and debate the issues, but it is a skeptics site, and there is no doubt the VAST, VAST majority of posters here are 9/11 truth debunkers.

Yeah, but how is "you're stupid" or "you're insane" debunking? I understand the frustration, but most of these conspiracy theory talking points are easily outsmarted, and the other ones could do with a little more good faith in pointing out errors to convince more people to at least stop and think about the possibility that all their assumptions aren't written in stone.

3. I do not think there is much you could do to "overstep" your bounds here at the JREF. As long as you do not break your TOS agreement, you are free to say pretty much anything here. Intelligent commentary based in reality is encouraged here.

Just making sure I don't break protocol, sir.

4. It is more like "calling it as the see it", but you are right, a lot of name calling does go on. The crowd gets rowdy every now and then. Usually someone will soon enough call for civility, before the mods come in and do it themselves. Of course labeling is a little different then name calling.

I dunno, I usually tend to hear "calling it as they see it" as a catchall excuse used for belligerence. I'm not making any direct accusations, but I am saying I've heard that before and have even been known to use it myself in the past. There's a difference between calling a spade a spade and calling a spade a crazy nutbag.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I realize the "popularity" of the 9/11 conspiracies, but there are loads of other conspiracies out there that could probably do with even a portion of the treatment 9/11 truthers have gotten as far as disseminating facts.

The Moon Hoax CTs are best handled over at the Bad Astronomy forum. It's full of amateur and professional astronomers who are very well versed. (I'm not saying that there aren't individuals here, but BA has a higher percentage by far)

If there was some sort of structural engineering/politics/military combo forum that spoke in layman as well as technical... Then that would be the best forum for taking on 9/11 CTers. It appears that JREF can handle those 3 areas of expertise just fine.

Maybe there needs to be a 9/11 CT sub-sub forum, and allow the CT sub forum to be just JFK, Bohemian Grove, NWO, Castro the Meat Puppet, etc CT's. The problem is... the 9/11 CT's flow from the other CT's. Especially the Zionist and NWO CT's.

Yeah, but how is "you're stupid" or "you're insane" debunking? I understand the frustration, but most of these conspiracy theory talking points are easily outsmarted, and the other ones could do with a little more good faith in pointing out errors to convince more people to at least stop and think about the possibility that all their assumptions aren't written in stone.

It's frustrating when CTists come onto ANY forum and A. Refuse to listen to answers given to them. B. Refuse to answer tough questions that are levelled back at them. C. Show some obvious mental defect, or signs of cult-like following. My apologies to those with friends or family members who have developmental impairments... But you can't argue with a retard. See the Bwando scene in the movie Idiocracy.

I dunno, I usually tend to hear "calling it as they see it" as a catchall excuse used for belligerence. I'm not making any direct accusations, but I am saying I've heard that before and have even been known to use it myself in the past. There's a difference between calling a spade a spade and calling a spade a crazy nutbag.

Think of a rookie cop in a bad neighborhood. Walking the beat, day in day out, trying to make the streets safer, arresting criminals, and yet some of the very people he's out to protect would turn on him in a second if they knew they could get away with it. Eventually the cop will get jaded, and start treating those he's trying to help with less and less respect, knowing he won't get any respect in return.

Sure it's easy to see the problem from the outside, but it's tough to see these truthers spew their crap day in and day out that's been debunked a million times, and they refuse to accept reality and see that they're wrong for what they're doing... But to change your behavior after being "burned out" on fighting them, is tough.

Maybe that makes sense, or maybe I need coffee... and a donut.

 

[GreNME]

It's frustrating when CTists come onto ANY forum and A. Refuse to listen to answers given to them. B. Refuse to answer tough questions that are levelled back at them. C. Show some obvious mental defect, or signs of cult-like following. My apologies to those with friends or family members who have developmental impairments... But you can't argue with a retard. See the Bwando scene in the movie Idiocracy.

Hey, how about people with brain damage? Can't reason with them, right? Ooh, or how about "you can't ever reason with a <conservative or liberal>." Yeah, this is awesome! You can pretty much write off anybody by using blanket statements!

Think of a rookie cop in a bad neighborhood. Walking the beat, day in day out, trying to make the streets safer, arresting criminals, and yet some of the very people he's out to protect would turn on him in a second if they knew they could get away with it. Eventually the cop will get jaded, and start treating those he's trying to help with less and less respect, knowing he won't get any respect in return.

Sure it's easy to see the problem from the outside, but it's tough to see these truthers spew their crap day in and day out that's been debunked a million times, and they refuse to accept reality and see that they're wrong for what they're doing... But to change your behavior after being "burned out" on fighting them, is tough.

Maybe that makes sense, or maybe I need coffee... and a donut.

I know what you're saying, and I am maintaining that I disagree. In fact, I think it is seriously hurting the credibility of this subforum. Exhibit A-- I'm not even a CT-ist and I found the two posts I criticized there to be so horribly flawed and lacking of intellectual honesty that I could almost see how a misguided rebellious kid would latch on to that as possible affirmation of conspiracy. Then it's just a matter of having older snake oil salesmen deliver to them the conspiracy pitch and BAM, they're the next member of the 'movement'.

I realize that the CT-apologizer in question in my example is a pretty frustrating and determined advocate of all-around conspiricizing, but that doesn't change my opinion at all. Let him dig his own hole. Sometimes the best rhetorical tool is to let an 'opponent' that you are convinces has no basis in fact to dig their own hole. In cases of others who post here who may be conspiracists or on the fence, they might have some pretty decent reasoning and critical thinking skills, at which point the approach can be more socratic and still be constructive.

Critical thinking is something you achieve and then rest on it. If it isn't exercised on a regular basis and worked out often, then it atrophies from lack of use. My impression is: there are a lot of posts that signify to me that a lot of people have used some critical thinking, have felt justified, and then rested on it and are showing signs of atrophy.

 

[AMTMAN]

What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.

Be careful of what you wish for because you might just get it. Let’s take a crack at Bob Bowman.

First there's his membership in Pilots For "Truth". You mention Rob Balsamo; well Mr. Bowman is a member of the organization Rob B founded.

< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html >

Actually a more accurate name would be Pilots for Lies, Half Truths and Cheery Picking of Information. One of their contentions is that the "facts" do not support an AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. Do they come up with any hard evidence that something else did? No they do not; all they have is the accusation. If you look at the press release linked below you will notice Mr. Bowman signed it.

< http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html >

The fact that he signed it along with Rob Balsamo must mean that he believes an AA 757 did not hit the Pentagon. So that must mean he believes the government went through this elaborate hoax of getting something other than a 757 to hit the Pentagon. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just let the aircraft hit it? Not according to people like Mr. Bowman.

Then there’s his denial of the massacre in Srebrenica. In it he makes claim after claim that he does not bother to back up with hard facts. He couldn’t even get the date that it occurred correct. The funny thing is that the Serbs themselves admitted that it happened.

< http://www.rmbowman.com/Bowman2006/kosovo.htm >

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3743176.stm >

He claims to have appeared on Firing Line.

< http://www.bowman2008.com/pg_01_about_2.html >

However I punched in his name in the guest search function and came up with nothing.

< http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/index.php >

< http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/searchResult.php >

The only person with the last name Bowman that appeared as a guest was a Dr. Marjorie Bowman.

< http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView.php?programID=1392 >

So exactly in what capacity did he appear on Firing Line? Was his name mentioned by one of the guests? If so that does not constitute appearing on Firing Line.