Zijn 9/11 conspiracy theorists de objectieve bondgenoten van Bush?

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Uh-Huh

Iedereen die wikipedia niet gelooft mag van mij, met andere bronnen, wel het tegendeel bewijzen, nl.:
1. Dat Bush niet alle voorstellen van de Taliban, zelfs een onvoorwaardelijke uitlevering van Bin Laden, heeft afgewezen.

Jep, helemaal akkoord.Dit wordt denk ik vaak vergeten door de man in de straat of hij/zij weet er niks van tout court.Ik denk dat de algemene consensus bij de meerderheid is dat de Taliban Osama niet wou uitleveren en dat VS daarom Afghanistan is binnengevallen.

Dat is naar mijn weten een verkeerde voorstelling van de feiten.

[Pindar]

Lees dit anders eerst eens even:

Wikipedia Response

Is Wikipedia an "encyclopedia" or a forum for malicious gossip and libel?

Wikipedia's "experienced" operators and "administrators" are frequently aggressive young males in their 20s who are not "experts" on their chosen subjects and who use Wikipedia to defame others.

Wikipedia should not be used as a credible reference.

""Another problem is that most of the administrators at Wikipedia prefer to exercise their police functions anonymously. The process itself is open, but the identities of the administrators are usually cloaked behind a username and a Gmail address. (Gmail does not show an originating IP address in the email headers, which means that you cannot geolocate the originator, or even know whether one administrator is really a different person than another administrator.) If an admin has a political or personal agenda, he can do a fair amount of damage with the special editing tools available to him. The victim may not even find out that this is happening until it's too late. From Wikipedia, the material is spread like a virus by search engines and other scrapers, and the damage is amplified by orders of magnitude. There is no recourse for the victim, and no one can be held accountable. Once it's all over the web, no one has the power to put it back into the bottle."


Someone at Wikipedia named "crazyeddie" has openly stated that he is has it in for me and has made a number of derogatory comments. I have no idea why this person displays such animosity towards me, but his viciousness is disturbing. He has also told my supporters that they should back off, so that he and the others can continue to pillory me. He seems to think he can behave badly with impugnity because he is an "experienced Wikipedian." While disparaging my work because of its "conspiracy theories," this "crazy" person calls himself a "Discordian," a member of a wacky cult founded as a joke by Robert Anton Wilson. Wilson has written extensively about Illuminati conspiracies. Discordianism has a hierarchy that includes popes, high priests, deacons, chaplains, etc. From Wikipedia:

According to the Principia Discordia, POEE is "a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians,scientists, artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued by Eris goddess of confusion and her doings." Furthermore it states that "POEE subscribes to the Law Of Fives of Omar's sect" and "POEE also recognizes the Holy 23."

As an example of extreme bias, here is what this 26-year-old "expert" has to say about me:

Yes, I would like the overall message of said article to be "Acharya is a nut", but that is only because I believe that statement to be close to objective reality. crazyeddie 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm am firmly of the anti-Acharyan POV, and am likely to stay that way unless you or one of your comrades-in-arms manages to convince me otherwise. Which you have made no attempt to do. I fully intend to etch my particular POV into the article at the deepest possible level - by any means necessary. That includes compromising with my ideological opponents. You see, if I unilaterally attempt to introduce language into the article, then that language will be quickly removed. In order to make a permanent mark in the article, I'm going to have to gain consensus backing for my proposals - including the backing of my ideological opponents if at all possible. Therefore, it is in my and my POV's best interests to give you every opportunity to review my proposals and allow you every opportunity to raise objections. You counterproposals will be included if and only if you can gain consensus backing for them. crazyeddie 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, where is this animosity and viciousness coming from? And why is it being allowed?

"Crazyeddie" states that he "flunked out" of one college. He is now attending a state university.

The question is: Why does Wikipedia give free rein to such shamelessly hypocritical, unqualified and hostile individuals, who haven't even read my books but who falsely present themselves as authorities on me and my work?

Furthermore, someone named AJA has seen fit to single out one aspect of my work, focusing on my critique of the Noahide Laws and Judaism. I critique ANY ideology that comes my way, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Mormonism. Singling out Judaism is a transparent attempt at smearing me. This behavior is absolutely uncalled for. Here's AJA's "unbiased" assessment:

The Jewish conspiracy I'm talking about is the one Acharya believes in because she's a nutcase. A.J.A. 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Christian "Zarove" chimes in, displaying not only extreme bias but also apparent sexism in his dismissal of my defense against his ongoing, vituperative defamation of me as a "hissy fit":

Acharya S's veiws on other htigns WHERE attmetoedot be added, but the fans objected as Acharya threw a hissy fit and acted like this was meant as an attack.

I would really like to know why "Zarove" - whose real name is Reginald Maxwell Cook - started this page, and why he holds such animosity and vituperation towards me to the point where he has threatened to commit crimes against me. He began this obviously personal attack on me, merely because I challenge his belief system. I did not personally attack him. I had never heard of him. I am merely defending myself against these vicious and unwarranted attacks on my person. Reginald Cook has repeatedly called me a liar, has been shown to be wrong, and has never apologized. He is clearly not a reasonable person. Since I am the one who is the subject of the page, it is my right to determine whether or not I will allow myself to be publicly and personally attacked. I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia would allow me to start a page on Reginald Cook, making all sorts of heinous accusations and character assassinations against him, and then leave it to stand, without castigating me. Reginald Cook's obsession with me and evident desire to destroy me are frankly disturbing.

Reginald Cook also calls himself a "reporter," when he cannot even get the simplest of facts correct, such as the name of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, where I spent the year 1982-83 traveling to dozens of archeological sites under the tutelage of some of the modern era's most credentialed academics. In his attack on me, Reginald Cook repeatedly claims I never went to some school by the name of the American School of Greek Studies - he's right. I never went to that school, I've never heard of it, and don't even know that it is a real place.

This person harps about my nom de plume but hides his own identity under the name of "Zarove," while smugly and condescendingly referring to me as "Dorothy." This person thinks that being disrespectful and overly familiar shows how much he knows about me. He does not know anything about me other than what he has gleaned from the internet. While depicting himself as a "journalist," he is so incompetent a "researcher" that - despite having my name - he can't verify that I a member of the American School or what that membership entails. Here is the "great expert" on Acharya S that Wikipedia is bending over to accommodate.

In his efforts to coerce my supporters into allowing him to smear and libel me with impugnity, this disturbed individual Reginald Cook states the following:

Tell Acharya and her otherdisiples this.

If she continues to lead otehrs in a Wikiedit war, mor einformaion will be foudn on her, as furtherresearhc will be doen to validate her claims.

I have recently looke dover my old notes, then did a absic web search of university websites. I was wrong, she did not earn a full masters degree, though she did take a few master credits. Shde hodls only a Bachelors degree.

I also learned of her past lover who attemtoed to expose her past criminal record.

I also learend of her Court huistory.

I also learned of her poor grades in school, and how much a joke the "TRench master" allegation is. She was a trench master, btu she hardly gave orders to a team of persons. She took notes at a student dig,. It wasnt even a proffesisonal dig, it was a student dig.

Do you rlelay want me to look furthe rinto Dorothy and her past? If so, then by all means ocntinue this Wikiwar and Ill write a full scale Biogrpahy, compelte with Annotaitons and links to relevant websites, includingthe ASOGS and Frnaklin and MArshal.

I am not trying to threaten here. But I do insist on truth and accuracy. Acharya is not turthful nor is she accurate.

She wants ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is.This is lying.

If you persist in your useless harrassment and stupid claism that the "Status Quo" ar eht only oens htat need to present evidence, I ll present mroe than she woudl hope for.

If ytour Clay footed Idol woudl step out of th shadows and be forthright with her credentials and biases, fine, if not, and if you decide to once again rmeove all critisisms of her work, and insted only show praise and sypport, and list her as " A Historian, linguist, Religiosu Schilar, Mythologyst, and Archeologist", then Ill show how each and every claim is as fraudulent as she claism Christainity is.

Because unlike CHristainity, their are TONS of documents abotu her life.

Need I also check her credit hisotry?

Its posisble online.

And Im sorry to have to make it this way. Byt as a reporter, I know th eimorotance of what appears in a public venue. If I simply write how much a wonderful person she is nd list all the thigns she cliasm to be as fact, people will beleive this. This article needs to be about proven facts, nt a support of her premise andnot just her own propoganda.

This Aritlce is nbout her and her life, so a Biogrpahy is not a bad idea. I limited it to this information fornow, but will not hesitate to post facts about Dorothy Murdock if she insists on fair representaiton. Ill post every libnk to every soruce as well.

What she means by fair rpresentaiton, thought, is unabashed support with no critisism.

Now, she can be content with her claism beign refuted and challenged, her rela name onscured ot D. Murdock, and her illustrious list of talents removed, or else she can allow a full examination of her life.

Again, Reginald Cook has repeatedly accused me of lying about my meager credentials, which aren't much quantity-wise but which quality-wise are threatening enough, apparently. He has attempted to post personal information regarding my family on Wikipedia, and he has made numerous threats to my supporters, attempting to intimidate them into silence - "if she insists on fair representation" - by making libelous statements about me garnered from a violent mental patient who committed several crimes against me and who is wanted by federal authorities for three felonies, including child abduction. This clearly disturbed individual has been demonstrated repeatedly to be wrong in his libel against me, but he is not rebuked or called a liar in return. Meanwhile, my defenders are endlessly attacked for things they don't do, with countless strawman arguments tossed their way by individuals who are clearly arguing above their station. Apparently Reginald Cook sent an email to my publisher demanding to know whether or not they checked my credentials. I believe that Reginald Cook is attempting to make a name for himself by smearing me.

Falsely accusing someone of "lying" and attacking their credibility, as Zarove and others have done repeatedly regarding my credentials is a matter for litigation, with "substantial liability for defamation." Zarove/Reginald Maxwell Cook has repeatedly lied, defamed my character and libeled me with falsehoods he evidently is receiving from rabid Christian apologist JP Holding, who in turn has been receiving these patent falsehoods from a wanted felon who terrorized and battered me; issued death threats against me, including in writing; attempted to hire at least one person on two occasions to kill me; committing perjury and other crimes numerous times; and eventually hired three thugs to abduct my small child out of my arms. He is currently wanted by the FBI. Here is the "source" that Zarove/Reginald is using for his defamation against me.

In the case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (497 U.S. I. 17-18. 111 L.Ed.2d I. 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2705-2706 (1990)), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"If a speaker says, 'In my opinion John Jones is a liar,' he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'In my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.' As Judge Friendly aptly stated: '[It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'"

Putting in writing that I am a liar is "highly defamatory," according to this opinion, and Reginald Cook has done just that, repeatedly calling me a liar, mendaciously claiming I made up my credentials. While he makes much ado about my use of the terms "archaeologist, mythologist, historian and linguist" - which by the dictionary definitions of each, I am - Reginald Cook remarks that I am, like him, "A proffesional writter."

Stating that I have a "past criminal record" is also libel of the highest order. This libel originated with the violent mental patient who committed crimes against me and my small child, and who is now wanted for three felonies. If Reginald Cook or anyone else, such as J.P. Holding, is in communication with this wanted felon, they are aiding and abetting a fugitive.

My so-called "court history" consists of a restraining order hearing against the violent fugitive who battered me. What are these "tons of documents" about my life? He claims I am not "accurate" - so are there literally "tons" of documents? Reginald Cook's behavior is frankly appalling. It is my opinion that Zarove/Reginald Cook should be banned permanently from Wikipedia.

Concerning Zarove/Reginald's threat to obtain my credit report, the credit agencies' websites clearly state that such a procurement of someone's credit report constitutes a federal crime:

"I understand that it is a federal crime subject to incarceration and/or monetary penalties to obtain a personal credit report for someone other than myself."

"I understand obtaining a TransUnion Personal Credit Report under false pretenses is a federal crime punishable by incarceration and/or monetary penalties."

Zarove/Reginald's threat to commit a federal crime against me has been reported to the FBI.

Reginald Cook further states that I received "poor grades" from my college, which is absolutely false. I would not have been accepted into the American School of Classical Studies if I had "poor grades." How does Reginald Cook know this supposed "fact?" Did he procure my school records? If so, he has committed a crime, since according to Federal and State law it is prohibited for educational institutions to disclose records to unauthorized parties. (Obviously, he has not obtained my school records, because I received good grades throughout school, so, once again, it is Reginald Cook who is lying.)

Let us provide yet another example of how "experienced Wikipedians" slant things in order to denigrate their targets. In my response to the vitriolic "JP Holding," I first state that Holding has been obtaining personal information aboudt me from a violent mental patient and wanted fugitive. Then I state that, in light of this behavior, Holding has no integrity and his work should be given no credibility. The "experienced Wikipedian" has taken that line out of context and inaccurately written:


Christian apologist James Patrick Holding has also rebutted her work, to which she replied, "This man, JP Holding, has no integrity, and his writings should not be given credibility."

This section has been changed to show the context. However, much of the rest of this hit piece proceeds with the same inaccurate and defamatory tactics.

I also note that other subjects at Wikipedia--including not only other mythicists but also the mass-murdering Stalin, for heaven's sake--receive a much gentler treatment than I do!

Since Wikipedia has now found its way to the top of search engines in numerous subjects, it is clear that defamatory material will have a damaging effect on one's reputation and livelihood. Several websites have now cloned this malicious material about me.

The following further illustrates the misguided vision behind Wikipedia.

On November 29, 2005, a prominent and respectable U.S. citizen, John Seigenthaler, had an editorial published in USA Today entitled "A false Wikipedia 'biography,'" which criticizes the popular online "encyclopedia" called Wikipedia for its evident unprofessionalism in allowing any utterly unqualified person with a computer to post slanderous and malicious material. This malicious gossip included a claim that Seigenthaler was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassinations. After about half a year of complaining to Wikipedia, including conversations with its founder, Jim Wales, Seigenthaler was finally able to have the material removed. However, as he puts it, there is little or no legal recourse to be taken against those who damaged his reputation in the first place, as they are anonymous and untraceable.

So it is with the internet, and that is the risk one takes when becoming a public figure. Imagine how the President feels when he is assailed with the most vicious and cruel language imaginable. I suppose the First Amendment can always be invoked, but in the case of Wikipedia, one has to ask, is it trying to bill itself as a credible source of information, written by intelligent, educated, mature and composed people--which is generally the manner of individuals writing encyclopedias--or does Wiki wish to be seen as a gossip column for malicious, ignorant and libelous individuals who have nothing better to do than attack others? As it stands, Wikipedia often degenerates into a monstrous hit-piece and hatchet-job forum for disturbed individuals to vent their spleens. There is frequently little or no regulation, and anyone can write all sorts of nonsense. As Seigenthaler discovered, the malicious speech will likely stand--so long as the uneducated, ignorant and unprofessional "administrators" will it. If the administrators have a personal axe to grind--as they do with ME in particular, it seems--they will allow whatever any detractor wants to post, and they will bust the chops of all who may defend against such slander. It has become clear that Wikipedia is a venue for people to assail others with obvious ad hominems that have nothing to do with facts. Fortunately, the complaints seem to have helped, as--at the moment, that is on 12/1/05--Wikipedia has cleaned up its article on me. On the Discussion page, however, one young smart aleck "admin," as Wiki's volunteer editors are called, who has no expertise in my subject matter called me a "quack," whatever that means, and another said that he wants the article to make "Achyra look like a nut." Obviously, there is little professionalism among these punky youngsters on Wikipedia.

Let us examine the rubbish posted there about me--now mostly confined to the Discussion Page but originally within the article. First of all, much ado is made about my use of a pseudonym, while ALL of the critics themselves--including the administrators--are freely allowed to use pseudonyms. Apparently, the use of a pseudonym is perfectly fine if you're a coward writing a hit piece on another person but it is not okay if you are a writer attempting to protect yourself from these very same vicious individuals. I am critiquing a subject--religion--that has inspired millions of psychotic individuals to kill others in the "name of God." Evidently, these critics at Wikipedia have never heard of or are incapable of understanding the use of a nom de plume--a PEN NAME, which by its very nature has to do with writers and authors. The use of a nom de plume dates back thousands of years and is essentially IRRELEVANT. Nevertheless, I have been forced to endure this unmasking, which was set into motion by an unscrupulous and unethical individual named Robert Price, who maliciously and spitefully gave not only my "real name" but also my HOME ADDRESS and HOME PHONE NUMBER to malicious individuals who released it over the net. I cannot imagine being so low and trashy as to do such a thing, exposing the individual in question--and his or her family--to potential danger.

In the Wikipedia Discussion Page are remarks from the so-called "administrators," i.e., the ignorant and biased volunteers who are supposed to be bringing some semblance of regulation and professionalism to this gossip magazine. These individuals are clearly incompetent and unable to contain their own prejudices, to the point that the willfully allow fallacious allegations and slander to appear as "facts." Instead of removing offensive material they often simply clean it up, as John Seigenthaler discovered, by correcting spelling and grammar errors. Because one of my most virulent and disturbed critics on the Wiki page claims to be "dyslexic," a convenient excuse for his atrocious spelling and grammar, they have much work to do.

Again, while these critics now possess my real name, they are apparently so inept as to be unable to verify that I am indeed a Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, where I spent an entire year traveling to well over 100 sites and excavating briefly at the important site of Corinth. Contrary to the ignorant mumblings of these critics, the American School is NOT something one pays to get into. Yes, we had to pay tuition--bully for us, eh?--but we were also required to be a decent student in a relevant field. A Dean's List student, I had received a BA in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College--and had to pass a 9-hour written examination, as well as receiving recommendations from professors, to get into the American School. (My mentor was Dr. Anne Stein.) The American School of Classical Studies (ASCSA) is a very prestigious institution that has included some of the best known names within the field of Greek Classics and archaeology. I was the second youngest member accepted that year, while most of the others were PhD candidates in their late 20s to early 50s. I shared a bathroom with a Harvard grad. It was a very grueling year that included long hikes into secluded areas all over the rugged Greek countryside. We were required to make presentations at various sites. My professors included Fred Cooper, Charles Williams and John Camp, who escorted Hilary and Chelsea Clinton around the Acropolis and Agora in Athens some years ago. I had previously studied under John's sister, Margo, during my semester abroad in college with Lake Forest's program in Greece. During my sojourn with ASCSA, I served as an assistant to the Lake Forest professor--a minister--while his class was on Crete. I will always cherish my time with ASCSA. Some years later, I returned to Greece with my family, on a trip that served as a memorial for my father, who died in 1986. We went to the School, and they were helpful in planning our extensive journey around the country. A member of ASCSA is a member for life. As an alumna, I still receive their newsletters--or I did until I was forced into hiding because of a violent crime committed against me and mine. An image of one of these newsletters is included below.

maar ja, deze info zal ook wel weer 'ge-edit'worden!

http://www.truthbeknown.com/wikipedia.htm


Nuff said

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

en wat dacht je van deze:

Wikipedia should NOT be used as a primary source for serious research according to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

For example, librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a "lovely idea," but that he would not use it in practice, and that he is "not aware of a single librarian who would

Likewise, Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica said in November 2004: "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him."

Many critics of Wikipedia – as well as many Wikipedia editors– have observed that the quality of articles varies widely, even when controversial topics are excluded from the discussion. Some articles are excellent by any reasonable measure – authored and edited by persons knowledgeable in the field, containing numerous useful and relevant references, and written in a proper encyclopedic style. However, there are many articles on Wikipedia which are amateurish, unauthoritative, and even incorrect, making it difficult for a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter to know which articles are correct and which are not.

wel een paradoxale situatie a la B.Russel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Nuff said




Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

en toen was het stil!


Pin d'Ar

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

en toen was het stil!


Pin d'Ar

Het ging hem hier over verifieerbare feiten die in Wikipedia stonden.Wat Uh-huh zei was meer dan terecht en of Wiki al dan niet altijd even geloofwaardig is doet niks terzake.Wat we nu hebben is dat we afgeleid zijn van een belangrijk punt wat we bediscussieerden omtrent 9/11 en met een ellenlange post zitten die niemand leest en die niks met 9/11 te maken heeft (daarom is het stil).Laten we hetgeen er hier niet toe doet maar vallen en truggaan naar waar we waren.

Met name de volgende post.

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Uh-Huh

Iedereen die wikipedia niet gelooft mag van mij, met andere bronnen, wel het tegendeel bewijzen, nl.:
1. Dat Bush niet alle voorstellen van de Taliban, zelfs een onvoorwaardelijke uitlevering van Bin Laden, heeft afgewezen.

Jep, helemaal akkoord.Dit wordt denk ik vaak vergeten door de man in de straat of hij/zij weet er niks van tout court.Ik denk dat de algemene consensus bij de meerderheid is dat de Taliban Osama niet wou uitleveren en dat VS daarom Afghanistan is binnengevallen.

Dat is naar mijn weten een verkeerde voorstelling van de feiten.

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Lex Blanca

en of Wiki al dan niet altijd even geloofwaardig is doet niks terzake.

Tsja , daar ben ik het dan niet mee eens. Als men Wikipedia als
betrouwbare bron aanneemt, doe ik mijn zegje en uit bovenstaande
blijkt overduidelijk dat Wiki GEEN betrouwbare bron is.


Nuff said

Pin d' Ar

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Tsja , daar ben ik het dan niet mee eens. Als men Wikipedia als
betrouwbare bron aanneemt, doe ik mijn zegje en uit bovenstaande
blijkt overduidelijk dat Wiki GEEN betrouwbare bron is.


Nuff said

Pin d' Ar

De zaken die werden aangehaald zijn verifieerbaar,je kon ook die zaken verifieren en als ze onwaar bleken dat aangetoond hebben en wiki in discrediet gebracht hebben.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Lex Blanca

Jep, helemaal akkoord.Dit wordt denk ik vaak vergeten door de man in de straat of hij/zij weet er niks van tout court.Ik denk dat de algemene consensus bij de meerderheid is dat de Taliban Osama niet wou uitleveren en dat VS daarom Afghanistan is binnengevallen.

Dat is naar mijn weten een verkeerde voorstelling van de feiten.

Zeer zeker!!
Wat trouwens ook bijna niemand weet is dat Mullah Omar himself meer dan een maand vòòr 9/11 de US gewaarschuwd heeft dat een anslag op til was en dat hij toen al iets wou doen aan het "probleem" bin Laden.
Ik denk dat de meesten ook vergeten zijn dat voor Bush president was, de taliban nog een mogelijke "partner" was voor Bush, Cheney en Co.
De taliban hebben hun voorstellen nooit aangenomen, omdat ze eerst eisten dat ze officieel zouden worden erkend door de VS.
Dus de taliban, (wat voor "wilden" het ook mogen zijn) waren helemaal niet uit op een confrontatie met de VS, eerder het tegenovergestelde.
Vandaar de waarschuwing én de vraag om met een oplossing te komen voor het geval bin Laden. En ook toen zijn Omar's voorstellen, net als na 9/11, door Bush genegeerd.

[oliepiek]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Heftruck

Jij bent gek.

Zei een andere conspiracy theorist! Hilarisch.

Zie, dat is nu net het probleem: conspiracy theorists beweren dat iedereen die niet in hun fantasie gelooft ofwel blind ofwel gek is. Wanneer irrationele mensen anderen verwijten gek te zijn, dan bewijst dat natuurlijk enkel dat ze wel degelijk irrationeel zijn.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door oliepiek

Naar aanleiding van de docu's op Canvas.

Wat sommigen inderdaad opvalt is dat zij die conspiracy theories rond 9/11 de wereld insturen, eigenlijk objectieve bondgenoten van Bush en extreem rechts neofascisme zijn.

In plaats van de kritische vragen te stellen die er echt toe doen, nemen zij de vlucht naar voren en verstikken het kritische debat. Ze maken elke grondige vraagstelling onmogelijk. En er is maar één partij die daar baat bij heeft, namelijk deze die oorlog wil, de extreem-rechts kapitalistische hoek met zijn militair-industrieel complex.

Men kan de conspiracy theorists er eigenlijk zelfs van verdenken dat ze zélf voor de CIA werken, misschien wel goed betaald.

Alleszins, de 9/11 complottheorieën hebben in de V.S. en Europa tot gevolg dat elk echt debat over de redenen voor 9/11 in de verdrukking is gebracht. Niemand vraagt zich nog af waar terrorisme echt vandaan komt. Niemand durft de vraag te stellen of dit terrorisme misschien zelfs enige legitimiteit heeft (met uitzondering dan van top-intellectuelen als Jean Baudrillard).

De complottheoretici zijn de grootste bondgenoten van Bush en Co; zij houden de massa zoet met fantasie. Terwijl we net het tegenovergestelde nodig hebben.

Maar de vraag is dus aan jullie.

En toch ... Jij bent gek.

[largo_w]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door oliepiek

Zei een andere conspiracy theorist! Hilarisch.



Zie, dat is nu net het probleem: conspiracy theorists beweren dat iedereen die niet in hun fantasie gelooft ofwel blind ofwel gek is. Wanneer irrationele mensen anderen verwijten gek te zijn, dan bewijst dat natuurlijk enkel dat ze wel degelijk irrationeel zijn.

Eindelijk iemand van het andere kant die het ziet en ook zegt!

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door oliepiek

Zei een andere conspiracy theorist! Hilarisch.

Zie, dat is nu net het probleem: conspiracy theorists beweren dat iedereen die niet in hun fantasie gelooft ofwel blind ofwel gek is. Wanneer irrationele mensen anderen verwijten gek te zijn, dan bewijst dat natuurlijk enkel dat ze wel degelijk irrationeel zijn.

Beste Oliepiek,

Ik ken een hele resem mensen die het inside gebeuren rond 9-11 in vraag stellen, die het ongeloofwaardig vinden, ... en ik maak daar geen enkel punt van. Zolang men zich niet in de materie verdiept kan men zich geen beeld vormen van de ware toedracht. Ik ben trouwens in het onderzoek gestapt net om enkele vrienden te bewijzen dat 9-11 geen inside job was, het is echter verkeerd uitgedraaid.

Mensen echter, waaronder een aantal op deze site, die enorm veel data krijgen voorgeschoteld aangaande de materie maar nog steeds bij hoog en bij laag blijven verdedigen dat er geen vuiltje aan de lucht is ... die zijn inderdaad dom of bang.

De informatie is veelzijdig, zowel officiële rapporten, berichten uit de main stream media, informatie van inside-sites, ... komen aan bod.

Wanneer men een objectieve analyse maakt van alle data is er maar één ding duidelijk: het officiële verhaal tracht ons te overtuigen dat we een 1000-stukkenpuzzel krijgen te zien van een tafereel waar een schip in stormweer aan het zinken is terwijl alle stukken die wij kunnen voorzien (pakweg 250 van de 1000) duidelijk maken dat het om een alpenlandschap met blauwe lucht gaat.

Hebben we reeds een gedetailleerd beeld van de puzzel? Neen, we weten wel dat de puzzel die ons wordt voorgehouden door de Bush-junta fake en vals is.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

het officiële verhaal tracht ons te overtuigen dat we een 1000-stukkenpuzzel krijgen te zien van een tafereel waar een schip in stormweer aan het zinken is terwijl alle stukken die wij kunnen voorzien (pakweg 250 van de 1000) duidelijk maken dat het om een alpenlandschap met blauwe lucht gaat.

Goeie vergelijking.
Omdat parci zo van vergelijkingen houdt, (maar er niet erg goed in is) herhaal ik 'm nog even. Heeft ie een goed voorbeeld.

[Vorenus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Goeie vergelijking.
Omdat parci zo van vergelijkingen houdt, (maar er niet erg goed in is) herhaal ik 'm nog even. Heeft ie een goed voorbeeld.

Je kan het ook anders bekijken,

3000 puzzelstukjes voor een puzzel dat dat nog één stukje nodig heeft en waarvan geen enkele past.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hellfigger

Je kan het ook anders bekijken,

3000 puzzelstukjes voor een puzzel dat dat nog één stukje nodig heeft en waarvan geen enkele past.

Eén stukje?

[largo_w]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

Zolang men zich niet in de materie verdiept kan men zich geen beeld vormen van de ware toedracht. Ik ben trouwens in het onderzoek gestapt net om enkele vrienden te bewijzen dat 9-11 geen inside job was, het is echter verkeerd uitgedraaid.

Wanneer men een objectieve analyse maakt van alle data is er maar één ding duidelijk: het officiële verhaal tracht ons te overtuigen dat we een 1000-stukkenpuzzel krijgen te zien van een tafereel waar een schip in stormweer aan het zinken is terwijl alle stukken die wij kunnen voorzien (pakweg 250 van de 1000) duidelijk maken dat het om een alpenlandschap met blauwe lucht gaat.

Het is raar maar hoe dieper ik ga hoe meer ik ervan overtuigd raak dat er toch ZEER veel gaten zit in de conspiracy kaas zoals jij ze mij probeert voor te stellen.

Leuk woord "objectief" vind je niet?
Wat dacht je van de definitie?

[SIZE=4]ob·jec·tief[/SIZE]2 (bn.) 1 zich bepalend tot de feiten, niet beïnvloed door eigen gevoel of door vooroordelen

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

Mensen echter, waaronder een aantal op deze site, die enorm veel data krijgen voorgeschoteld aangaande de materie maar nog steeds bij hoog en bij laag blijven verdedigen dat er geen vuiltje aan de lucht is ... die zijn inderdaad dom of bang.

Hadden we hier niet iets over afgesproken?

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door largo_w

Het is raar maar hoe dieper ik ga hoe meer ik ervan overtuigd raak dat er toch ZEER veel gaten zit in de conspiracy kaas zoals jij ze mij probeert voor te stellen.

Er is niet ÉÉN conspiracy kaas, er zijn een 3000-tal theoriën MAAR DAAR GAAT HET NIET OM!!

De gaten in de het officiële verhaal daar gaat U aan voorbij. De leugens die U werden voorgeschoteld en die u zonder verpijnzen hebt geslikt, DAAR GAAT HET OM!!

OBJECTIEF bestaat niet, alles is SUBJECTIEF OBJECTIEF, zich bepalend tot de feiten, niet beïnvloed door eigen gevoel of door vooroordelen

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door largo_w

Hadden we hier niet iets over afgesproken?

Voelt u zich persoonlijk aangevallen? 't Was niet de bedoieling, maar indien wel, denk er dan eens over na

[largo_w]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

Er is niet ÉÉN conspiracy kaas, er zijn een 3000-tal theoriën MAAR DAAR GAAT HET NIET OM!!

De gaten in de het officiële verhaal daar gaat U aan voorbij. De leugens die U werden voorgeschoteld en die u zonder verpijnzen hebt geslikt, DAAR GAAT HET OM!!

OBJECTIEF bestaat niet, alles is SUBJECTIEF OBJECTIEF, zich bepalend tot de feiten, niet beïnvloed door eigen gevoel of door vooroordelen

Voelt u zich persoonlijk aangevallen? 't Was niet de bedoieling, maar indien wel, denk er dan eens over na

Zeker dat ik mij persoonlijk voel aangevallen!

IK GELOOF NIET ALLES WAT ME WERD VOORGESCHOTELD. Ik legde al meermaals voor wat ik geloofde en wat niet.

Ik ga er niet aan voorbij; wijs er mij op en ik zal ze of beargumenteren of beamen.

Dat van die meerdere kaasjes van de conspiracy heb ik al door maar ik moet toch zeggen dat de uitgebreidde versie hier vaak wordt aangehaald (= Amerika in de macht van enkelingen die een sekte vormen die...). Ik reageer dan ook altijd maar op wat jullie schrijven.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door largo_w

Zeker dat ik mij persoonlijk voel aangevallen!

IK GELOOF NIET ALLES WAT ME WERD VOORGESCHOTELD. Ik legde al meermaals voor wat ik geloofde en wat niet.

Ik ga er niet aan voorbij; wijs er mij op en ik zal ze of beargumenteren of beamen.

Dat van die meerdere kaasjes van de conspiracy heb ik al door maar ik moet toch zeggen dat de uitgebreidde versie hier vaak wordt aangehaald (= Amerika in de macht van enkelingen die een sekte vormen die...). Ik reageer dan ook altijd maar op wat jullie schrijven.

HIER worden de juiset vragen gesteld ...

Lees deze eens en reageer dan op dit schrijven ...