9-11 Truth= Great Gift to Islamic Extemists

[parky76]

the 9-11 truth conspiracy theories are the greatest gift islamic extremists could have ever received. why?

now, whenever a terrorist bomb goes off, if they like the target, such as israelis, they can yell "allah akhbar!!..death to the infidels!!"

but when something goes wrong, and children are hurt or fellow muslims are killed they can yell "ah see?..it was an inside job. no muslim would ever kill another muslim".

i wouldnt be suprised if Hamas started blowing things up and claimed it was an "inside job" to hide their guilt.

and even if non-muslims are killed, and the intendid target is hit, muslim extremists can still yell "inside job!!" so they dont have to acknowledge the extremism in their own communities.

thanks Dylan. thanks Alex. you have done this world a great service.

[Quad4_72]

Whats funny is I was thinking the exact same thing today. What a convenient thing for the muslims. And us Americans really aren't helping ourselves much.

[Peephole]

I think conspiracy theories are retarded. But claiming that troofers are doing the wrong thing because islamic fundamentalists might take advantage of it is silly.

Ideas shouldn't be held back because someone might abuse them.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually I doubt that they would, simply because they WANT people to know they did it. Their objective is to make people fold and surrender to them by fear, people will only fear them if they know it was them that did it.

Look at it this way. You want to intimadate your neighbour, so you set fire to his house and then start screaming that the NWO did it. How can you then tell him to do what you demand of him. "Do what I say or I'll tell the NWO to burn down the rest of it"?

[Quad4_72]

I think conspiracy theories are retarded. But claiming that troofers are doing the wrong thing because islamic fundamentalists might take advantage of it is silly.

Ideas shouldn't be held back because someone might abuse them.

Not sure what you are saying here. But yes, the twoofers are indeed doing the wrong thing by spreading lies about America throughout the Muslim world furthering their hate for us. Can't get too much more clear than that.

[PhantomWolf]

Not sure what you are saying here. But yes, the twoofers are indeed doing the wrong thing by spreading lies about America throughout the Muslim world furthering their hate for us. Can't get too much more clear than that.

To be honest I wouldn't have thought that the 9/11 conspiracies would get a lot of traction amongst those that hate the US. They see the 19 Hijackers as heroes. Would you listen to someone that told you that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had never landed on the Moon? Some deal.

[Quad4_72]

Actually I doubt that they would, simply because they WANT people to know they did it. Their objective is to make people fold and surrender to them by fear, people will only fear them if they know it was them that did it.

Look at it this way. You want to intimadate your neighbour, so you set fire to his house and then start screaming that the NWO did it. How can you then tell him to do what you demand of him. "Do what I say or I'll tell the NWO to burn down the rest of it"?

The main problem is the non-extremist muslims starting to buy into the conspiracy and then going the way of the extremist. Remember, the Twoof movement is pushing that the motive behind 9/11 by the government was to go to war with Iraq. So Muslims think we made 9/11 happen to go on a Christian crusade into the middle east and to steal their oil.

[PhantomWolf]

The main problem is the non-extremist muslims starting to buy into the conspiracy and then going the way of the extremist. Remember, the Twoof movement is pushing that the motive behind 9/11 by the government was to go to war with Iraq. So Muslims think we made 9/11 happen to go on a Christian crusade into the middle east and to steal their oil.

I don't think you are giving them enough credit for intelligence.

[gumboot]

Islamic militants have been attacking their own people and blaming it on the other side for years. It's one of their favoured military tactics.

-Gumboot

[leftysergeant]

White nationalists have been screaming since it happened that the Murrah bombing was an inside job.

How many twoofers have you seen agree that it actually was dim Tim with a truckload of ANFO?

They hate America.

[Undesired Walrus]

Whats funny is I was thinking the exact same thing today. What a convenient thing for the muslims. And us Americans really aren't helping ourselves much.

I'm.. I'm sorry, since when have 'the' Muslims not been 'us' Americans?

[gumboot]

I'm.. I'm sorry, since when have 'the' Muslims not been 'us' Americans?

When they say "the muslims" I think they mean "the Muslim Extremists". Just guessing.

-Gumboot

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I'm really surprised that Osama hasn't gone the truther path just to mess with people's minds, and convince the people in this country that seem to take his word as truth over our own country's. And I'm not just talking about the far right... The far left has the tendency to distrust America first.

I honestly believe that if KSM had heard of this truther nonsense before he was captured, he would be sitting in his jail cell spewing out truther talking points.

[twinstead]

I'm really surprised that Osama hasn't gone the truther path just to mess with people's minds, and convince the people in this country that seem to take his word as truth over our own country's. And I'm not just talking about the far right... The far left has the tendency to distrust America first.

I honestly believe that if KSM had heard of this truther nonsense before he was captured, he would be sitting in his jail cell spewing out truther talking points.

I think it would be even more likely that they would be shouting inside job from every rooftop if it really was an inside job.

If I were OBL right now I'd be pissed that the truth movement is trying to steal my thunder.

[Sabrina]

I still think it's possible that the extremists STARTED the rumors of an inside job in what could be the greatest Denial and Deception operation ever, especially since they got random idiots to completely fall in line with their lies.

The whole point of Denial and Deception is to mess with the enemy's head, for the most part (there are other uses). Why not use it to make the attempt of confusing the issue further? After all, the more wrong information there is out there, the easier it is to hide the true information.

I can just picture the meeting between Dylan and someone in Al Qaeda where he gets told he's been doing their work for them all along; I think his head would explode from shock.

[GreNME]

I still think it's possible that the extremists STARTED the rumors of an inside job in what could be the greatest Denial and Deception operation ever, especially since they got random idiots to completely fall in line with their lies.

The whole point of Denial and Deception is to mess with the enemy's head, for the most part (there are other uses). Why not use it to make the attempt of confusing the issue further? After all, the more wrong information there is out there, the easier it is to hide the true information.

I can just picture the meeting between Dylan and someone in Al Qaeda where he gets told he's been doing their work for them all along; I think his head would explode from shock.

Careful, you are getting into the realm of gross speculation and attribution of malevolence that is the bread and butter of conspiracy theories of all type. The methodology I typically use to avoid this is the famous Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I typically replace "stupidity" with "ignorance" in the sentence, if only because the statement still attributes deliberate action where there may be none.

To the OP and supporting opinions:

I find myself just as sickened by the "they're helping the terrorists" mentality as I am by the stubborn refusal to accept any contrary evidence by the 'truth' groups. What really helps the extremist groups who would like to see what they consider a Western hegemony crumble is the process where we eat ourselves to pieces from the inside. This tends to be the primary goal with insurgencies and groups who tend to use terroristic methods (the two are not always the same), because it means a war of attrition and a war of attrition is much easier to win when fighting an enemy who is conventionally much larger and stronger militarily. The main weapons in attrition does not require bullets or troops, but an underlying rage from those who claim they are being oppressed (whether real or figurative), and the goal of creating a situation that fighting becomes useless on the side of the larger opposing force. A popular argument, for example, about the war in Iraq as an extension to the "War on Terror" is that if we quit we are giving in to those who are fighting us through attrition. This also allows for the demonization of people who are firmly opposed to fighting the front in Iraq as though they were aiding and abetting the enemies of the US, and as stated in this thread those who firmly believe the US shouldn't be invested over there like it is. It becomes easier to sustain the momentum against an enemy when those who oppose the momentum can be viewed as enemies as well.

Don't get me wrong: I fully believe that 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold a completely untenable position. They are the result of wishing to search for meaning behind an event that is not easily explainable, and to achieve thorough examination would require a complete reworking of the definitions of "good" and "evil" applied to ourselves, our friends and allies, and our enemies. People believe the conspiracies not because it's 'easier' per se, but because it places all of those aforementioned things into a clear and defined box from which a 'truth' (unstable though it may be) can be found and clung to. Just as with normal political processes, these 'truth' movements are typically led by sociopathic attention whores who charismatically attribute all wrongs that occur on everyone else and usually with unscrupulous intentions, while clinging tenaciously to a moral high ground that simply doesn't exist.

Yes, 9/11 'truthers' are indeed way off-base in many areas. That does not make them evil, nor should it be used as an excuse to make blanket statements. Doing so is just as bad as the misrepresentation of reality and fact (and wrapping the claim of "truth" around it) as the conspiracy theorists themselves.

[Sabrina]

Yes, but notice I said it was a POSSIBILITY, not a FACT. I'd have to do a LOT more research, likely into classified material, before I could state it as a fact. That is the main difference between skeptics and twoofers; one posits ideas and looks up the information needed to prove or disprove, the other states an absolute and ignores all the evidence to the contrary. Just because I said it was a possibility doesn't mean I believe it happened. However, I should point out that the fact I'm thinking of possibilities such as this indicates that the intel community is finally making an attempt to seriously consider all possibilities rather than dismissing something as unlikely and letting it fall to the wayside to the detriment of the entire country, as happened prior to 9/11.

[GreNME]

Yes, but notice I said it was a POSSIBILITY, not a FACT. I'd have to do a LOT more research, likely into classified material, before I could state it as a fact. That is the main difference between skeptics and twoofers; one posits ideas and looks up the information needed to prove or disprove, the other states an absolute and ignores all the evidence to the contrary. Just because I said it was a possibility doesn't mean I believe it happened. However, I should point out that the fact I'm thinking of possibilities such as this indicates that the intel community is finally making an attempt to seriously consider all possibilities rather than dismissing something as unlikely and letting it fall to the wayside to the detriment of the entire country, as happened prior to 9/11.

I am sure you believe you mean well, but suggesting wild speculations even as a possibility is not indicative of critical thinking. Just as people who subscribe to critical thinking measures do not investigate whether there actually are invisible electronic gnomes who perform tasks in your computer when you provide some sort of input, most wild claims with no reliable basis are easily dismissed outright due to their separation from rational speculation. Otherwise, you would be essentially faling into the exact logical fallacy that is used when someone asks someone else to prove a negative. It is a ridiculous assertion that does not require it being considered precisely due to its outlandish nature.

Demonizing someone you disagree with, no matter how distasteful you find their opinion, does not place you in a morally superior position. When you make wild speculations like "I can just picture the meeting between Dylan and someone in Al Qaeda" in your post, you may not actually be making an accusation but you are rhetorically framing the context. It is not unlike asking an opponent "so, have you stopped beating your wife and kids?" or the more realistic example that comes straight from the 2000 presidential primary elections, "would you still vote for John McCain if he had children with a black woman he had an affair with?" Sure, you may not actually be making a real accusation, but the way in which you frame your sentence creates a scenario where there is a possibility that something occurred, even when the question has no basis in reality in the first place.

Keep things like that in mind and removing yourself from allowing that to happen is a key element in critical thinking. Otherwise you leave yourself open to unwanted bias and, eventually, to zealotry.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm really surprised that Osama hasn't gone the truther path just to mess with people's minds, and convince the people in this country that seem to take his word as truth over our own country's. And I'm not just talking about the far right... The far left has the tendency to distrust America first.


He has on JFK...

[GreNME]

I'm really surprised that Osama hasn't gone the truther path just to mess with people's minds, and convince the people in this country that seem to take his word as truth over our own country's. And I'm not just talking about the far right... The far left has the tendency to distrust America first.

Could you explain, then, why the most nototious conspiracy theorists-- and by this I mean those who have been CTs the longest-- are all of the extreme 'constitutionalist' right? Interestingly, though, even that branch of right-wing-ness is not in line with the contemporary right or left. Seriously, what good comes from implicating a political ideology with negative connotations?

I honestly believe that if KSM had heard of this truther nonsense before he was captured, he would be sitting in his jail cell spewing out truther talking points.

Nonsense. You are assuming that, in the few years he was running loose after the events, that he never even once heard conspiracy theories. Considering that he had plenty of opportunity to have access to such materials prior to his capture, there is no reason to assume he hasn't at least heard some of the talking points.

Whatever happened to Occam's Razor? Why all of these unnecessary associations with lack of basis?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Could you explain, then, why the most nototious conspiracy theorists-- and by this I mean those who have been CTs the longest-- are all of the extreme 'constitutionalist' right? Interestingly, though, even that branch of right-wing-ness is not in line with the contemporary right or left. Seriously, what good comes from implicating a political ideology with negative connotations?

My ongoing theory is that as you get far to the right and far to the left, there tends to be more in common than not. Both far left and right tend to be police states (how else would communists take ownership of all property if not by force...) Hitler and Stalin, while they had many differences would have a great time discussing and swapping ideas on how to keep a population in line... as long as economics wasn't brought into the conversation.

It's NOT just crazed right wing constitutionalists who believe this junk. Both Chavez and Castro (if he's still alive) have jumped on the truther bandwagon, as have left-leaning celebs like Rosie O'Donnell. I'll concede that when I, as a right leaning fiscal conservative Republican, tussled with truthers on other boards they would call me a "liberal". At the same time I've seen left-leaning truthers who believe in truther lies solely because they *want* to believe Bush was In On It™.

Both the far left and the far right tend to distrust Jews, and think they're "up to something".

Nonsense. You are assuming that, in the few years he was running loose after the events, that he never even once heard conspiracy theories. Considering that he had plenty of opportunity to have access to such materials prior to his capture, there is no reason to assume he hasn't at least heard some of the talking points.

Whatever happened to Occam's Razor? Why all of these unnecessary associations with lack of basis?
I am asserting my belief of an impossible "if" to prove.

Let's see, he was caught in March 2003. 18 months since 9/11. While I did hear of some wacky conspiracy theories at the time, being a news and internet junkie who was not on-the-run in Pakistan, they were no where near as widespread and fleshed out as the truther talking points are now. He may not have even imagined that enough people actually believed in them for him to have any reason to state them.

He's also been isolated from the outside world for the past 4 years. The 9/11 Commission report didn't even come out until 2004, which I would hazard a guess of when the truther movement gained some more notoriety.

So I would be confident in standing by my thinking that, say he was still on the run, and caught today, he would be singing the truther praises just to [rule10] on our parade.

[GreNME]

My ongoing theory is that as you get far to the right and far to the left, there tends to be more in common than not. Both far left and right tend to be police states (how else would communists take ownership of all property if not by force...) Hitler and Stalin, while they had many differences would have a great time discussing and swapping ideas on how to keep a population in line... as long as economics wasn't brought into the conversation.
Indeed, most of my political (sociological) study has led me to similar thinking: that the right tends to focus more on liberty while the left tends to focus more on equality, and rather than a linear differentiation between the two types of thinking the more appropriate imagery would be a large circle with extreme right (let's say fascism) and extreme left (let's say communism) tend to merge into one another. Using a real-world example, the USSR was a perfect example of the two merging to form something indicative of both extremes. But I digress...

It's NOT just crazed right wing constitutionalists who believe this junk.
This statement I agree with, but with one qualification: these crazed constitutionalists (I tend to avoid calling them 'right wing' in general because I don't associate them with the conventional right) tend to be the ones creating, assembling, and propagating the junk to begin with. Certainly they package it in phrases and arguments that make it more palettable to the audience they are preaching to, but then again so do many people who are trying to spread a meme they believe in with such visceral faith that they claim they would die for it?

Both Chavez and Castro (if he's still alive) have jumped on the truther bandwagon, as have left-leaning celebs like Rosie O'Donnell.
Regarding Chavez and Castro, I tend to be skeptical of their intellectual investment in such movements as opposed to their habits for leaping at political opportunistic mechanisms to undercut a government they are at odds with on many levels. Castro even moreso than Chavez, from all I know of the man, would have no problem dropping the 'truth' movement without any hesitation were it to server no further purpose (most specifically attempting to undermine the US government). As for entertainers, let's all be honest now: this is a group of individuals who notoriously glom onto social and cultural fads, including political 'movements' and the like. Some of them go as far as to give some face for their newfound 'movement', but don't for a second think that these celebrities wouldn't disassociate themselves with extreme prejudice if their fad turned out to be damaging or its popularity disappeared.

Basically, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the depth of conviction from the examples you give, if only because most of their past behavior implies a willingness to play the "flavor of the moment" game with some ideologies.

I'll concede that when I, as a right leaning fiscal conservative Republican, tussled with truthers on other boards they would call me a "liberal". At the same time I've seen left-leaning truthers who believe in truther lies solely because they *want* to believe Bush was In On It™.
Precisely. And there are equally as many right-leaning 'truthers' who believe it solely on the basis that they consider many of the behaviors of our government to be a flagrant infringement of their rights and individual liberties (nanny state). The paths to the CT movements are varied, and the base reasonings are complex. That's kind of my point: it's not simple enough to make blanket statements. :)

Both the far left and the far right tend to distrust Jews, and think they're "up to something".
I disagree. People in general tend to find groups that they distrust and are often able to find spectacular ways to justify it. Jews are one group who have seen a whole helluva lot of this over a very long and well-documented period of time. I tend to recommend Constantine's Sword to people who are interested in a historical look at the West's past of some pretty horrible treatment to Jews, since most people usually tend to only look at the Nazis as the main example (and the Nazis didn't kill the most or even last the longest... we have a pretty despicable record with treatment toward the Jews).

Nonsense. You are assuming that, in the few years he was running loose after the events, that he never even once heard conspiracy theories. Considering that he had plenty of opportunity to have access to such materials prior to his capture, there is no reason to assume he hasn't at least heard some of the talking points.

Whatever happened to Occam's Razor? Why all of these unnecessary associations with lack of basis?
I am asserting my belief of an impossible "if" to prove.

Let's see, he was caught in March 2003. 18 months since 9/11. While I did hear of some wacky conspiracy theories at the time, being a news and internet junkie who was not on-the-run in Pakistan, they were no where near as widespread and fleshed out as the truther talking points are now. He may not have even imagined that enough people actually believed in them for him to have any reason to state them.
There were conspiracy theories out well before he was caught. Do you not recall the book by the two French fellows that came out before the Iraq war asserting a conspiracy? We may not have seen the first cut of Loose Change yet, but there were plenty of people claiming that at least parts of the attacks were faked and that the US government was complicit.

As for guessing about what he may or may not have imagined, I think you're personalizing a bit much in his stead. I make no claims as to his frame of mind or personal musings, just the known history that he was at least moderately well read and educated, similar to OBL and other leaders of militant groups.

He's also been isolated from the outside world for the past 4 years. The 9/11 Commission report didn't even come out until 2004, which I would hazard a guess of when the truther movement gained some more notoriety.

So I would be confident in standing by my thinking that, say he was still on the run, and caught today, he would be singing the truther praises just to [rule10] on our parade.

Did you read the list of charges he "admitted" to? I mean, come on, just from that list alone it is clear he has little or no regard for what the US government may or may not claim he's done. He may as well have admitted to shooting Bambi's mother while he was on a roll. The chances are better than he's playing a much different (and possibly trickier) game than the dodgy and unfocused game that conspiracy groups do.

Also, remember that as far as KSM is concerned you are dealing with a moderately intelligent person from a culture different than Western culture, with different rhetorical models. I submit that you are employing a possible rhetorical strategy that is based on completely different models of thought, and not in character for KSM or al Qaeda in general. OBL already played that hand (very early) and it didn't pan out, so it's unlikely that it will become a staple defense from the organization in any real capacity other than to sow discontent in Mid-Eastern states (to paint the occupying forces in Iraq as despotic Nazi-like oppressors). Essentially, I doubt KSM really gives much of a crap about US politics because he already assumes that all of the US government consists of liars, thieves, and generally evil people. As such, it's doubtful he would even care about the 'truther' movement for any real purpose. Even if the 'truther' movement was completely non-existant in the USA right now insurgent forces and al Qaeda would still be propagating "the US government lied and are killers" mantra anyway. They did it before 9/11, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't be used as a tool even if every single American out there agreed on what happened that day.