It's the stuff like this that lends credence to the 9/11 truther nuts. While I still don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it's very clear that the 2nd phase of that theory is in full effect all over the world. They're using terrorism as a justification to silence people and control us, right before our very eyes. This is scary stuff folks.
I think it's more like 0.05% of us give a shit. Nobody else gives a damn so long as American Idol on Ice-Factor or whatever the hell people are vicariously existing through these days airs.
Humanity is neatly self correcting themselves out of existence.
There's two things to consider regarding 9/11 conspiracies - is it true that they would want the benefits that fear of terrorism has lead to, and if so would they actually have killed people for that sake. We're seeing more and more that the first part of that is true, i.e. proving the motive.
That said, I'm firmly in the "it wasn't a conspiracy" camp - but you can at least see why a conspiracy believer would see these things as backing up part of their beliefs.
With respect, a conspiracy believer sees everything as backing up their beliefs. That is the major defining characteristic of conspiracy theorists, their ability to twist everything to support their narrative.
People have a tendency to see the short term and hype it up beyond all belief. At the same time as we are discussing this, the CIA have formally admitted to essentially trying to destroy a democratic nation. I like to try and keep things in perspective.
> With respect, a conspiracy believer sees everything as backing up their beliefs.
I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are would have been labelled by many as conspiracy theorists. Now we know they were just... people with the correct knowledge and/or guesses. So because they were once thought to be conspiracy believers we should lump them into one category and say "they see everything as backing up their beliefs"?
The nuttier a belief is, and the longer it goes on, the more likely it is we're to hear about it. For every new "this proves me right", those of us who don't believe it think here we go again..., while for every new "this proves me wrong I've changed my mind", we don't hear about that.
All in all, there are two options about 9/11. Either it was a Government plan, in which case of course new points support the theory, and one day we will probably find out the truth. Or the conspiracies are complete bullshit, in which case some statements/facts will be used erroneously to support them, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't statements/facts which genuinely do support those theories.
> I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
The user begins by saying I might be a troll due to having a young account, finds my account is old, but uses it to confirm his belief rather than realise I am arguing honestly.
> Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are
We still don't actually have any particularly firm knowledge on exactly what the NSA is doing. I blame a lot of the reporting to be honest, but many systems like this have been theorised by perfectly rational people for a while.
> All in all, there are two options about 9/11
This is a little bit of a false dichotomy, but there is no chance whatsoever that any of the major conspiracy theories are valid. You don't have to trust me on this, just go and look at the website of the largest activist group, AE911Truth and read their self contradicting list of evidence.
> Why don't you go and have a good long thing about your life, how you interact with others, and what you want to achieve when you talk to people, especially strangers. What you are doing now is, long term, going to do you no good at all.
Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
9/11, I already believe (as I previously stated) that none of the conspiracy theories are valid. That doesn't mean that small things can't help support the theories in valid ways. If I have a theory that Michael Jackson was murdered by Osama Bin Larden using a trained hedgehog, and I find out that Bin Larden did actually own a trained hedgehog, that backs up a small part of my theory. That doesn't mean my theory is true.
> Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
What you must realise is that this user believes I am posting with ulterior motive, essentially he only trusts his interpretation of my text. This is symptomatic of conspiracy theories.
I agree with the rest of your post without reservation though.
I would define it slightly differently. When facts don't back up their belief, conspiracy theorists will consider people stating those facts to be either manipulated or conspiring.
This is a very dangerous, "cancerous" position, although it is logically valid. One should be highly alarmed if the way to resolve logical contradictions in the world leads to conclusion that I am special. It effectively is shutdown of any outside facts, and from that, anything can be concluded.
Because it's a logically consistent position, it's very dangerous and can affect highly intelligent people.
I just had a lunch today with a coworker, after several months. It's a bit of pain for me, because it seems he has fallen to exactly this sort of process.
>People have a tendency to see the short term and hype it up beyond all belief.
Actually, the opposite is true for me. I have been watching government corruption since the early 80s and have seen nothing but malfeasance for 30 years.
If you pay attention to the long term, you will see how much corruption and farked up BS there really has been.
Because many people only see the short term, they tend to lose sight of the history of how we got to where we are.
Just take a simple timeline of Cheney's activities:
* Sec of Defense under Bush, he sets up the framework for the military to focus on it's core - ad to push all non-combat activities to the private sector.
* Leaves office to head halliburton to put them in a position to receive all government contracts for non-combat activities
* Comes back as VP and is just so lucky to lead the start of the largest, longest, most expensive war of our generation. Pushes trillions of dollars to the private sector defense contractors.
If you were only looking at the short term, you'd have missed how odd that timeline looks.
You can delve into it even further and just see how really bad it was.
Christ - even a whole documentary was made about it. (Watch Iraq for sale)
> There's two things to consider regarding 9/11 conspiracies - is it true that they would want the benefits that fear of terrorism has lead to, and if so would they actually have killed people for that sake.
No, there's three things: (3) Did they actually kill the victims of the 9/11 attacks for that purpose; this differs from the second because it isn't just would they, in the abstract, be willing to have killed somebody, somewhere to do it, but did they actually do the particular acts that the conspiracy theory accuses them of doing.
> We're seeing more and more that the first part of that is true, i.e. proving the motive.
That they wanted the powers they were granted after 9/11 was evident before 9/11, since they were largely powers that had been overtly sought prior to 9/11 (some on "terrorism" or similar national security grounds, some to fight more regular crime -- notably the War on Drugs.) So evidence on that point is not really significant; its not the point that was in question.
"A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security."
It's starting to really piss me off how these governments think they can do anything as long as they mention "national security" in their public statements. It's like they think we're all morons and we'll actually believe it everytime they say it.
Commenters here on HN saying terrorism should be treated as any other crime are rights. Eliminate all "special terrorist-laws", and you'll stop these abuses.
Another problem with the blatant over use of terrorism and national security is that people are finally starting to realise it's bullshit. When there is actual legitimate concern of terrorism or fear for national security people will ignore it. No doubt they'll invent another phrase to get their point across and we'll go through the same cycle of overuse again.
> people are finally starting to realise it's bullshit
Unfortunately when this happens, we have white flag terrorist event happening, caused and sponsored by government, just to put people back in their places. It seems to always work :(
I really don't know what the solution is, but this is not about pushing the switch that will always jump back (if you understand my analogy). We all need to come together and push it so hard that it will immediately switch over to the other side. Those in charge who says that kind of bullshit will stand on our side. Military called in to "cleanup" will refuse. Those who are about to declare "martial law" will declare those who tired to gave that order, terrorists.
This is the only change that, at this point, will work. Any other attempt will put you in jail for long time or life, will get your belonging confiscated, your family scrutinized and God knows what else.
This counterproductive use of the courts is just the latest development in a story which doesn't quite add up. Miranda said that the police asked him to hand over all his passwords ("they got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone"), and (in the same interview) claimed "he didn't have a role", but then Rusbridger says (in the same article) that "[Greenwald] is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work." Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the passwords!
Greenwald, the Guardian et. al don't get it: in order to convince me that they are in the right about surveillance, they need to be beyond reproach. I don't necessarily agree with the use of surveillance programs, but I certainly don't agree with the cynical truth-mangling tactics of the other side: because the truth is really the only advantage that side has. How did we get into this situation?
I don't understand this thinking. Greenwald and the Guardian have very little power in comparison to the intel agencies and governments they report on. Why is their conduct more important than the people they're reporting on, people we already know are misusing law and the power of government?
If anything, intel agencies and governments need to convince me they're beyond reproach or I'm just going to assume that their amoral ways will only get worse.
All I want is the truth. The details are inconsistent - someone's being economical with the truth. We found out that the NSA lied repeatedly, and I'll be bitterly disappointed if the other side doesn't hold itself to the high standards it (and we) expect of our governments.
Another inconsistency: check out Greenwald's original write-up [1]
> At the time the "security official" called me, David had
> been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me
> that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours
> in order to question him, at which point they could
> either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the
> question time. The official [...] said David was not
> allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow
> me to talk to him.
But then, in the report on Greenwald's detention [2]:
> He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he
> refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
Let's be honest: if the official was lying, Greenwald would have pointed it out. So why didn't he? Greenwald just presumes that I'll believe him since he's so much more trustworthy than a sinister figure on the end of a phone. That presumption must end.
He was smart to refuse the lawyer, but Greenwald's assertion that Miranda was not allowed a lawyer present was not actually grounded in reality. This whole thing stinks.
There's a big difference between being offered a lawyer and being offered to call your lawyer. If he was not allowed to call a lawyer of his choosing then he was not allowed to have a lawyer present. A lawyer provided by the government is just another agent of the government in the room.
Since many law enforcement agents at the federal level (in the US at least) happen to also be lawyers then, by your logic, there is already a lawyer present. No need to get another one involved.
There's no logic involved: Greenwald said something that wasn't true (whether that something came from him or the official who spoke with him is not yet clear). Then the closer you look, the more emerges: Miranda in his later interview said "I don't have a role" but then Rusbridger admitted this morning that he did have a role. Rusbridger then insisted that Miranda "was not a journalist" but assisted his partner in "journalistic work". If the NSA's position fell apart under such basic cross-examination, we'd be all over it, so why do these guys get a free pass?
If you don't know where the statement originated then you don't know enough to state that it is untrue. Either way, I still have no problem with the statement. We are essentially arguing over semantics at this point. You say any lawyer will do, I say it has to be a lawyer of his choosing.
I fail to see how several different people making a statement about the man's level of involvement in the reporting is relevant to anything. The man says he has no involvement so anybody else stating otherwise is mistaken. What's the relevance to what's being reported?
You're complaining about it; we're discussing it; I fail to see the free pass they have supposedly received.
> Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the passwords!
Why is this impossible? Of course he knows his mobile phone and laptop password. It's entirely possible, though, and maybe even likely, that he doesn't have the decryption passphrases for the data he's couriering on them.
People hosting a Tor node do the same thing - they transport data without knowing what's in it.
