Howard Johnson Should Have This Many Flavors
There's not a week goes by that we don't get a commenter or an emailer saying, "Yeah, you can debunk Loose Change, but what about [insert favorite conspiracy film/book/website here]". To a certain extent, this is a fool's errand, as there are as many varieties of the 9-11 "Truth" as there are "Truthers", but they all more or less use the same methods--quote mining, acceptance of dubious sources, reliance on the one witness who saw something different....
But I did think I'd take up at least one of the challenges. I was able to download a copy of Webster Tarpley's Synthetic Terror and will be reading it over the next week or so to give you an idea of my thoughts on it.
Tarpley begins with his initial thoughts as 9-11 happened:
(click pix to enlarge)
Note particularly that Tarpley knew "immediately". This is a common theme of a fair percentage of the Deniers; our buddy Gypsy Taub, for example said in USA Today:
"Oh yeah, absolutely. On the day it happened, I thought it was the government that did it," she said.
And the second part, about what the "intention of its planners" is just plain weird.
Tarpley then delves into his claims that terrorist groups in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s were run by NATO. As evidence he points to this:
And if France had seen an upsurge in terrorism, that would also have proven that NATO was behind it, right?
Tarpley goes on to claim that Aldo Moro (a former prime minister of Italy) was killed by NATO intelligence, not the Red Brigades terror group that claimed responsibility at the time. I don't intend to get into the Moro case here; it's peripheral and even if we accept Tarpley's convoluted conspiracy theory, it amounts to the old, "If they would do X, why wouldn't they do Y" argument, which is not evidence.
There is one bit that seems a bit bizarre here:
In fact, Negri was pretty quickly cleared of being involved in the Red Brigades, and appears to have been sentenced more on the basis of his writings than on any actual actions he had undertaken; note in particular that France refused to extradite him to Italy for fourteen years. I'm not a big fan of revolutionary Marxists, but I'm also not a big fan of imprisoning them for their writings.
Labels: Sythetic Terror, Webster Tarpley
posted by Pat @ 11:14 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Note particularly that Tarpley knew "immediately".
I guess that make Tarpley "smarter" than Fetzer, since the latter claims it took him a year to reach to same conclusion.
it's peripheral and even if we accept Tarpley's convoluted conspiracy theory, it amounts to the old, "If they would do X, why wouldn't they do Y" argument, which is not evidence.
Yeah, it's called "pull an argument out of your ass then claim it proves pretty much anything you want it to prove".
Did Tarpley get a lobotomy before or after he became a LaRouchie?
The fact that he "knew" is telling.
On 9/11, I had a feeling that al-Qaeda was behind it, but I didn't "know" immediately. I needed evidence to back up my assumptions.
I will admit I was wrong that day, my first thought was it was one of the homegrown terrorist groups. I had seen something about Oklahoma City and that was in my mind.
But the Arab names of the terrorist soon changed that.
It is funny, in the OP you mention the "flavors". Over at JREF I have been commenting on two CTers over there, posting in direct contradiction over there.
Pagan says the Journal of 911 studies is absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and that none of the mags articles have been refuted, yet ACE baker, a staunch "STAR WARS BEAM" Fellow, states that the BEAM WEAPON is the only way they towers could have turned to "dust". ACE even now puts in to question himself, the claims of Stephen Jones, as Jones has analyzed GZ debris, to find admist the "Dust" Macroscopic peices of concrete etc..
Of course, ACE says the chain of custody is in question...
TAM:)
Only a deranged or politically motivated individual could make an initial suspicion that 911 was an inside government job. Anyone with an iota of intelligence had to suspect some type of terrorist attack, and if not, just do a little research to lead you in that direction.
I wish these high school and college troothers would just pick up a book like "Perfect Soldiers" to learn that these Islamic terrorists were indeed responsible for 911; learn why they succeeded not because they were so big, but because thet were so small. Instead, they relish in misleading YouTube videos.
However, I still hold out hope that young kids will see the light. I have seen one of my kids' friends drop out of the trooth parade, and he was hard core, but to be honest with you, it was probably do to peer pressure.(that puts the number at zero troother's that I personally know).
Like 911_truthiness, I was initially uncertain about al-Qaeda's involvement, but that's because I come from the UK, and am used to experiencing a very different kind of terrorism. The IRA would usually tip people off before the attack and take credit immediately, neither of which fitted what I saw that day. Of course, for al-Qaeda, the stakes were higher; when the IRA admitted to planting a bomb, all they risked was a police investigation, whereas al-Qaeda had to know a military retaliation campaign was going to follow.
Basically, as soon as I read up on Osama and al-Qaeda, I realised that this was done according to their modus operandi. The Deniers, on the other hand, remain unable to let go of that initial period of doubt and confusion that followed the attacks; why else would so many of their sources date from September 2001?
I'm reminded of a quote from John Maynard Keynes, when he was accused of changing his stance on important issues; "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do YOU do, sir?"
There have been claims that this blog is fraudulent and that you are not the "Pat" associated with "JamesB" and the effectively endorsed 101st Fighting Keyboardist groupg screwloosechange, brainster, among many others authored by the same small group.
Do you have a response to this?
So let's clear this up, are you...
Pat *****,(not *****, as some have stated) and I was born on March 4th, 1955."
If not, are you interested in suing the other guy for portraying you in a false light?
Temp I never knew you took such a PERSONAL Interest in Pat.
Interesting.
TAM:)
If not, are you interested in suing the other guy for portraying you in a false light?
First, to be successful with a suit requires that some allegation that the law recognizes be made. Portraying someone in a false light doesn't, I would say, cut it. The real Pat may have not liked the fake Pat doing what he did, but what the fake Pat did is probably not defamatory. Mocking someone does not constitute defamation.
Second, parody/satire is protected speech -- particularly obvious parody, I would think. It's no more reasonable for someone to believe the fake Pat then it is to believe a quote taken from "The Onion." There are, of course, people who don't realize that "The Onion" is a joke, who think the Phil Hendrie show is for real, that believe in the reality of professional wrestling, and think that the fake and real Pat are the same person. I know of no way to account for these people.
Third, what could the real Pat hope to gain through a law suit? Some guy living in his mother's basement probably doesn't have much that can be taken away.
Post a Comment
<< Home