"Why We Fight..."

[realitybites]

Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the "conspiracy theory" forum, but being that the issue revolves around one, I've decided to post it here. Feel free to move the thread if need be.

Shortly after the anniversary, a good friend of mine stated her belief that Ground Zero was quite simply a grave for 2,794 people. As such, it should be a place of remembrance, of reflection... a place to grieve. Nothing more. It is most certainly not a place to spout conspiracy theories. But it is also not the place to combat them.

This point was brought up again by a commenter over on the Screw Loose Change site and it's something that, being one of the group who regularly goes down to Ground Zero, I've recently started to struggle with.

So. My question to the rest of this forum. Is what goes on at Ground Zero, from either side, appropriate? While I can't speak for Abby or Mark, I'm fairly sure the consensus is that we're not going to sway any CTer - that's a lost cause. We're there to counter their claims for people who may otherwise get sucked into them. People who have no thoughts one way or the other; no background on any of the events of that day.

And that point of view has led me to other doubts. Are we giving credibility to the CTers by being there? Are we taking credibility away from the general public by inadvertantly assuming that they wouldn't be able to see through the BS on their own?

I don't want this post to be construed as an attempt to gain praise or validity for what we do. I honestly believe that our being there is well-intentioned.

But is it necessary? And more imporantly... is it appropriate?

 

[Abbyas]

I've been struggling with the same questions.

I just want to reiterate what Realitybites said: This is not a thread for praise. If you think efforts are better placed elsewhere, please say so.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

to make peace you must prepare for war

GZ is unfortunately the battlefield the CTers have chosen, if you dont confront them there, you cant confront them

personally i think the presence of contrary viewpoints keeps more of them from showing up every week

but of course you can still stay one step above them on the moral ladder (that means no bullhorns)

 

[60hzxtl]

Of course it's appropriate.

We mourn the dead and comfort the living.

If a plotter of 9/11 is brought to trial or tribunal, would you want to see a CT'er used as his defense?

Would you like to see that plotter walk away, because a juror confused "reasonable doubt" with no doubt whatsoever, because of a "controlled demolition" idiot planted "pull it" in the testimony?

That's why we fight. That's why I made a Saturday trip to shake Gravy's hand.


Don't blame yourself. The idiots brought this on themselves. They brought it to that grave sight.

Defend those who no longer have a voice. That's what brought you there.

I don't want you to have to comfort those who lost someone at WTC or the Pentagon or Shanksville, who watches a plotter get with murder.

Don't apologize for being a human being.

 

[LashL]

So. My question to the rest of this forum. Is what goes on at Ground Zero, from either side, appropriate? While I can't speak for Abby or Mark, I'm fairly sure the consensus is that we're not going to sway any CTer - that's a lost cause. We're there to counter their claims for people who may otherwise get sucked into them. People who have no thoughts one way or the other; no background on any of the events of that day.

And that point of view has led me to other doubts. Are we giving credibility to the CTers by being there? Are we taking credibility away from the general public by inadvertantly assuming that they wouldn't be able to see through the BS on their own?

I don't want this post to be construed as an attempt to gain praise or validity for what we do. I honestly believe that our being there is well-intentioned.

But is it necessary? And more imporantly... is it appropriate?

In my humble opinion, it is both necessary and appropriate. What you (collectively you, Abby, Gravy, Kate, and others) do at ground zero is necessary for the reasons you've stated above. It is important to counter the conspiracy theory claims for those who have no knowledge one way or the other. The counterpoint is the truth and unchecked lies should never go unchallenged, particularly when the subject matter of the lies is something as important as the lives of thousands of innocent people whom the CTers mock and deride at every opportunity.

It is appropriate because you state your case eloquently, respectfully, and for the specific stated and intended purposes of countering the lying CTers, defending the truth, protecting the sanctity of the memories of the dead, and preventing people from being sucked into desecrating the dead and mocking the families of the dead.

I know that you didn't start this thread to garner praise or to seek validity but you (collectively) deserve praise for what you do. You do an incredible job every weekend, giving your time and energy and talent in what is - has to be - a very emotional self-sacrifice every weekend. Like all selfless undertakings, it might feel like a thankless endeavour at times, but rest assured, you are absolutely doing the right thing, for all the right reasons.

I, for one, thank you and appreciate your efforts more than you will ever know.

 

[realitybites]

But what is the overriding factor here? I guess that's my main issue.

Is it stopping the spread of lies?

Or respecting and remembering the people who perished?

In all honesty, if it were up to me, those 16 acres would be a place of silence. Unless you're there working to rebuild the site, you have no business making noise. It's not a photo-op. You don't smile and give the peace sign while your friend snaps a pic for MySpace. And it's most certainly not a pulpit.

You go there. You remember. You pray. You relfect.

Just because others have chosen to use the site for their own purposes, should I be forced to go against what I believe that site should be?

 

[dirtywick]

I think that if you want to keep the CTers out so that victims can grieve, you'd have to remove the press first. It seems to me that they crave publicity for their theories, they know there will always be a big audience, willing to listen or no, so they show up there.

So, you're really not going to stop them from showing up. And without some people there to counter the rhetoric it quickly becomes focused on the ones there to mourn and reflect.

I mean, really, talk about poor, disgusting taste. If you have something to say, fine, but there's a time and a place, you know? It's a lot like those baptists that would protest and disrupt soldiers funerals. It's just revolting that people would do that, but eventually people started showing up and standing in a perimeter to keep those guys away and let the people that were there that don't care about the politics and this or that, they just want to mourn the people they loved. Somebody has to stand the line.

If you need to remember and reflect, by all means do so. But by getting out there and standing the line, you're doing a great service too for a lot of people, so don't sell yourself short there either.

I haven't been there, and I haven't lived near that area, but eventually I may. Everyone was effected in some way by 9/11, and I know some people much more so than I have, and if the time ever comes I'll take pride in distracting those jerks from disrupting the people who have lost husbands, wives, and children that day, simply on principle.

That's just what I think about it.

 

[MarkyX]

From the emails I've been getting from several 9/11 family members...

Keep fighting the good fight. We are honoring the memory, not them.

 

[gumboot]

In my own humble opinion...

Yes, Ground Zero is the site where thousands died. But is that all it is? No, it's not. It is the centre of an international city. It is at the heart of a hub of commerce and culture.

The phrase "we can't let the terrorists win" is one that gets thrown around a lot - and indeed it's a phrase that lends itself to making some very funny jokes. But there is a very serious and very legitimate aspect to it.

Should certain activities in the middle of New York be forbidden, out of respect of the dead? Are the memories of the nearly 3,000 slain people of greater value than the things that are so cherished by our societies?

I say no. Since the Second Persian War, when the Athenians first gave birth to the concept of free democratic society, countless millions have died to ensure it continues. We cannot allow the wound of 9/11 to cause us to devalue these values.

The ability to come together in an open public space and debate issues of mutual interest is the seed from which western society was born.

That right, that tradition, has cost our collective history entire generations. Ten of millions of lives. Much as it is hard to say, with the wound so fresh, that tradition, that right, is worth many magnitudes more than the lives of those who died on 9/11.

So yes, what happens at Ground Zero is appropriate, from both sides. Indeed; public discourse, anywhere, should be encouraged.

You'll recall, from my livejournal, that I spoke in almost completely opposite terms, regarding 9/11 itself. As I said "There are 364 other days of the year to consider these issues. Not this day."

9/11 is the day for rememberance and reflection. The other 364 days not only CAN be used for discussion and debate and disagreement, they SHOULD be used for that.

In this regard, I thoroughly and unshakenly defend the right of the CTers to gather at GZ and express their opinions. I will loudly protest any attempt to take that right away from them. (Well, as loudly as a non-American on the other side of the world can...)

So. Should you guys combat them? I believe you have a right to. Should you though? That is an individual decision. I believe SOMEONE needs to. I believe many will accept some of their arguments, otherwise. I believe the collective group of those who know better have a DUTY to do so - just as the citizens of Athens had a duty to attend the Assembly. But as far as each individual, that is a decision they should make for themselves.

Any who feel such activities at GZ are inappropriate, any who feel they should NOT combat the CTers; that is also their right. I respect their decision to stay away.

But for those who DO go down there; for those who DO combat these lies, you should never hesitate. You should never doubt. What you do is only right.

Consider.

This concern you have seems to originate out of respect for the victims. By your actions, by the debunkings of MarkyX and Gravy and everyone else across the expanse of the internet and the "real world", you offer the greatest respect to the victims you possibly can. You respect the victims by action, by value, by your dedication to informing and educating the masses.

You guys are more respectful to the victims than any people I have ever known.

-Andrew

 

[LashL]

But what is the overriding factor here? I guess that's my main issue.

Is it stopping the spread of lies?

Or respecting and remembering the people who perished?

In all honesty, if it were up to me, those 16 acres would be a place of silence. Unless you're there working to rebuild the site, you have no business making noise. It's not a photo-op. You don't smile and give the peace sign while your friend snaps a pic for MySpace. And it's most certainly not a pulpit.

You go there. You remember. You pray. You relfect.

Just because others have chosen to use the site for their own purposes, should I be forced to go against what I believe that site should be?

Yes, it's both paragraphs 2 and 3 - stopping the spread of lies and respecting those who died, not only at that site but at the other sites that day. I also undertand and agree with your 4th and 5th paragraphs - remembering, reflecting, praying - honouring the dead.

As for paragraph 6, if you feel that you are bing "forced" to "go against what [you] believe", then perhaps you should not continue. Should you choose not to continue, please know that a whole bunch of us who are too far away to do what you do appreciate all of your past efforts, as do the families of the victims. Conversely, should you choose to continue, please know that a whole bunch of us who are too far away to do what you do appreciate your ongoing efforts, as do the families of the victims.

I realize it is a very personal thing and I would never fault you for whatever you decide. As I said in a prior post, if you feel forced to be there for the wrong reasons, then you probably shouldn't be there. That said, I sure hope that you'll continue, because you are doing this for all of the right reasons and because it really does make a difference, but should you choose not to, you'll not hear any criticism from this quarter. I know how difficult it is to put yourself out there publicly on a contentious issue. I will only add that, for me at least, based on personal experience, it's worth it when you know in your heart of hearts that you're on the right side of truth and justice.

And allow me to reiterate/paraphrase what Andrew said above. You and Gravy and Abby and Kate etal have consistently come across as entirely respectful of the victims, unlike the CTers.

 

[Gravy]

– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."

– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."

– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.

– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.

– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.

– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.

– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.

– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.

– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.

– Because ever since Abby told me that the creeps also protest outside the New York Public Library, I can't wait to go and expose that delicious irony. (and maybe read some poetry: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty...")

– Because it's fun to be mysterious when my old drinking buddies ask if I've found some new drinking buddies or something (most don't know I'm involved with this insanity: I release that information on a need-to-know basis only).

– Because the gubmint salary, health plan, and pension are highly satisfactory, our jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to Mumbai, and Dick Cheney is holding my cat at knifepoint.

 

[realitybites]

Okay. Appreciate the thoughts on the whole "right and wrong" of this whole thing.

But what about:

Are we giving credibility to the CTers by being there? Are we taking credibility away from the general public by inadvertantly assuming that they wouldn't be able to see through the BS on their own?

 

[realitybites]

Haha. Somehow I knew Gravy would come into this thing with guns ablazin'.



ETA: I may print that one out and laminate it. The critical thinker's credo.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But is it necessary? And more imporantly... is it appropriate?

If you don't fight against lies, they get repeated over and over, and some people start to believe them. Fight the good fight, where you find the enemy. Do you want the lie to be perpetuated, or do you want it exposed for what it is? The sub-culture of falsehood that infects America, which includes the PC movement, is a societal ill. Evil prospers when good men do nothing, and the lies -- by politicians, criminals, advertisers, or whackos like LCers -- are a significant evil because they are lies. Pick your fights, but when you pick them, fight them, and fight to win.

DR

 

[kevin]

Sometimes the dead don't want silence. Defending those no longer able to speak for themselves is a true act of courage.

 

[Mercutio]

Okay. Appreciate the thoughts on the whole "right and wrong" of this whole thing.

But what about:

Are we giving credibility to the CTers by being there? Are we taking credibility away from the general public by inadvertantly assuming that they wouldn't be able to see through the BS on their own?

Look at the polls. We can idealistically assume that the general public can see through the BS, or we can realistically look at the polls and see roughly a third of that general public [scripps poll] thinking that the US government was involved in the attacks.

 

[jhunter1163]

RB, Gravy, Abby:

To answer the question of why you fight, it's because it's the right thing to do. It's right to fight ignorance and lies. It's right to confront those who would dishonor the memories of 2,749 people and tell all who will hear that Avery and his band are shamelessly profiting off a national tragedy. And if you think that GZ is the wrong place for such a fight, remember you didn't choose the site. THEY did.

I hope that you go on fighting ignorance and lies wherever they are found. You guys are living examples of the JREF mission; dedicated to stamping out nonsense. I salute you all.

John

 

[stateofgrace]

These ghouls dance on graves and they do so on the very ground this dreadful event took place.

They desecrate the ground with their garbage and insanity.

Fight on.

I also salute you.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the "conspiracy theory" forum, but being that the issue revolves around one, I've decided to post it here. Feel free to move the thread if need be.

Shortly after the anniversary, a good friend of mine stated her belief that Ground Zero was quite simply a grave for 2,794 people. As such, it should be a place of remembrance, of reflection... a place to grieve. Nothing more. It is most certainly not a place to spout conspiracy theories. But it is also not the place to combat them.

This point was brought up again by a commenter over on the Screw Loose Change site and it's something that, being one of the group who regularly goes down to Ground Zero, I've recently started to struggle with.

So. My question to the rest of this forum. Is what goes on at Ground Zero, from either side, appropriate? While I can't speak for Abby or Mark, I'm fairly sure the consensus is that we're not going to sway any CTer - that's a lost cause. We're there to counter their claims for people who may otherwise get sucked into them. People who have no thoughts one way or the other; no background on any of the events of that day.

And that point of view has led me to other doubts. Are we giving credibility to the CTers by being there? Are we taking credibility away from the general public by inadvertantly assuming that they wouldn't be able to see through the BS on their own?

I don't want this post to be construed as an attempt to gain praise or validity for what we do. I honestly believe that our being there is well-intentioned.

But is it necessary? And more imporantly... is it appropriate?

I think it's appropriate. I don't know that it's necessary, but it's positive. I think it helps marginalize the Deniers who go down there, and it lets people who go down there to grieve or remember or simply contemplate the freedom to do so without feeling like they have to react to them. They can look at you guys and say, "Thank Ed someone is confronting these a$$clowns so I don't have to." Even if they can see through the Deniers' BS, people are going to itch to react, and more often than not it will be an inflamed reaction, and they'll walk away agitated. I think what you do is not to make any converts, and not even necessarily to sway any fence-sitters, but just to reassure people visiting the site that the Deniers are not going to be swaying any fence-sitters.

 

[rikzilla]

– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."

– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."

– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.

– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.

– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.

– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.

– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.

– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.

– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.

– Because ever since Abby told me that the creeps also protest outside the New York Public Library, I can't wait to go and expose that delicious irony. (and maybe read some poetry: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty...")

– Because it's fun to be mysterious when my old drinking buddies ask if I've found some new drinking buddies or something (most don't know I'm involved with this insanity: I release that information on a need-to-know basis only).

– Because the gubmint salary, health plan, and pension are highly satisfactory, our jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to Mumbai, and Dick Cheney is holding my cat at knifepoint.

Nominated...and reposted to the UK nut-job board.

Move over Randi...Mark Roberts = hero.

-z