whatreallyhappened.com - fearless journalism or Internet loonies? by SimonWho

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

re:

Quote:
random ravings of loonies

Admittedly I only scanned a couple dozen links, and only for sources and headlines - however, many were links to respected US news sources (Wash Post, NYTimes), respected foreign news sources (BBC, Reuters, Toronto Sun, Financial Times) and other reputable US or international news sources I'm familiar with. There were sources I didn't recognize that neverthless carried stories that were broken elsewhere and have good 'conventional' media coverage. And there were news sources AND stories I didn't recognize, including a couple of Isreali news sources.

I didn't check out the selection of stories, but I suspect that's what you have an issue with.

Based on the credibility of roughly 2/3 of what I saw, I'm inclined to think most of what is linked is factual (with the caveat that it might have a pov and one should take that into account).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Rue note the salient point here, most of the information is well-sourced - but the site does have it's good days and bad days, of course.

It's a good one-stop shop for news other than whatever partyline the garden variety papers are trumpeting, BUT - one should practice a healthy amount of skepticism at *any* news source these days, "reputable" or not.

Cause those 'respected' sources lie or distort as much as 'loonies' do - everyone has an agenda, everyone.

If you want to actually know something, anything, in the information age, you have to check multiple sources, and sift through the agenda, spin, and blatant bovine excretement shoveling to get down to the hard facts.

And that's anything from your local paper, to a national paper, to a radical conspiracy site.
Nobody's gonna tell you anything these days without slanting it to their own point of view, period.

With that in mind - yes, it's a useful source of information, just take care to confirm it properly before putting any trust into it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 12:30 PM

ICCLEDAMES

I'm currently studying a BA (Hons) degree in Journalism in Lincoln, England and one of the things we're taught is that even the most remote of rumours can have enough twist on it to make it sound plausible enough to sound real to the casual reader (or listener or viewer depending on the medium). Then, before long it has become fact in the eyes of said reader.

Similarly, some people say that newspapers have an obligation to publish that which is in the 'human interest'. However, in modern day society this ideology has been suplanted with 'Of interest to humans' - people are more interested in celebrities and TV shows that they are less intune with events that may actually have a direct impact on their lives.

In this way, readers can be de-sensitised towards more extreme-stories, making them believe them without question.

Did that make sense? Did it even tie in with the topic? Heck I can't remember...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 12:58 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Does our appreciation of Firefly go hand-in-hand with a deep distrust of the government or is it simply irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves?

One of the reasons I like Firefly is the ongoing struggle to keep the Alliance off their backs.
Here's a story:
When I was six our school went on a field trip to a slaughterhouse to be educated on where our hamburgers came from. The cows seemed happy outside. But their best interests were not foremost on the minds of their owners. We were told the cows didn't feel anything, but the moos and stomping feet just as the bolt hit seemed to say otherwise (we didn't actually see the cows get it, guess that would've been too much for kids). We were being lied to. And most of the class smiled and acted like they believed what they were told, not what they saw and heard.
Welcome to Distrust 101.

Yeah, I believe Governments Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 1:09 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
re:
Quote:
random ravings of loonies
Admittedly I only scanned a couple dozen links, and only for sources and headlines - however, many were links to respected US news sources (Wash Post, NYTimes), respected foreign news sources (BBC, Reuters, Toronto Sun, Financial Times) and other reputable US or international news sources I'm familiar with.

Oh, they link to plenty of actual respected sites, I just strongly disagree with a) their interpretation of what those sites are reporting (case in point the Israeli "early warning"), b) that they present their opinions as fact and c) that they are making some outrageous claims because they know their target audience will lap it up. The same three reasons that make Fox News so reprehensible.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 1:11 PM

ICCLEDAMES

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Does our appreciation of Firefly go hand-in-hand with a deep distrust of the government or is it simply irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves?

One of the reasons I like Firefly is the ongoing struggle to keep the Alliance off their backs.
Here's a story:
When I was six our school went on a field trip to a slaughterhouse to be educated on where our hamburgers came from. The cows seemed happy outside. But their best interests were not foremost on the minds of their owners. We were told the cows didn't feel anything, but the moos and stomping feet just as the bolt hit seemed to say otherwise (we didn't actually see the cows get it, guess that would've been too much for kids). We were being lied to. And most of the class smiled and acted like they believed what they were told, not what they saw and heard.
Welcome to Distrust 101.

Yeah, I believe Governments Chrisisall

Good grief that sounds gruesome for a school trip! Even if you didn't see anything.

I remember our trip "to see how things work" was to the local supermarket. The next year, I'd left Primary school (gone to 'big' school) but the next school trip on the same theme got taken to Alton Towers to see how theme parks work.

I can't help but feel we were short-changed

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 1:56 PM

CHRISISALL

It was a little grusome, I guess. I almost cried on the bus back to school. But I'm a Government-cynical almost-vegeterian, so I guess it was a good thing.

Pass the veggie burger Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 3:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, WE went to see Hostess Twinkies and other delectables being made!

And we went to see the local newspaper being printed - back in the days when they poured the press with molten lead. Smelled bad. Probably took a few IQ points off of everyone as well. So THAT'S what happened to me! I knew I'd find an excuse, uhm, reason, yeah REASON, for the way I am.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 3:34 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey SimonWho

Quote:
Oh, they link to plenty of actual respected sites, I just strongly disagree with a) their interpretation of what those sites are reporting (case in point the Israeli "early warning"), b) that they present their opinions as fact and c) that they are making some outrageous claims because they know their target audience will lap it up. The same three reasons that make Fox News so reprehensible.

I admit I didn't put a lot of effort on this site. What I saw was a bunch of links. In terms of what the website created (vs what it linked) I didn't see interpretations on the linked sites and only 1 clearly identified editorial in the body of the page, and not too much outrageous stuff being linked. Perhaps you could point out for me where to look or what to look for. Thanks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 11:10 PM

SIMONWHO

Well, they link to articles and either they speak for themselves (which are links to other conspiracy sites or blogs where people put forward their own conspiracies) or they put a sarcastic comment underneath like "Suuuuuure" or "Translation: "We better grab those images before they get posted to the internet and really blow this thing open!" "

This page has most of their self-produced articles. If you want the gist, everything (and I mean everything) bad that has happened in America since WWII has been the work of the Government, sinister authority figures or Israel (not Jews per se, they're not anti-semetic, but, you know, Israel).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

Basically Al-Qaeda doesn't exist and all its attacks were manufactured by the US, the twin towers were blown up by bombs (yeah, I don't know why either), Osama's been dead for four years.

The real issue I have with these sorts of things is that it makes it so much easier for our governments to disregard any attempts to bring them to account for their real crimes. If you argue that we were deliberately misled into the Iraq war (as it seems quite probable), they'll immediately spin you as being part of the same loony mob as these guys.

I think the irony that they provide a very usual escape route for government accountability is lost on them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:09 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, WE went to see Hostess Twinkies and other delectables being made!

Poor Twinkies. They suffocate 'em in plastic near the end.
Life sucks.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Poor Twinkies. They suffocate 'em in plastic near the end.
Life sucks.

Oh, so that's how they kill them. Better than being eaten alive I guess. But still, the silent slaughter of the Twinkies is an issue that needs to be addressed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey SimonWho,

Thanks for the link to the quick index. It does seem to be the distilled version of the website's own writings. So, though I have no problem in general with their news links, the quick index makes them look pretty whacked-out at first glance. It's one of those things where I'd probably read a topic in depth to see how salient they were and try to get a believability gauge on them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:42 AM

Interesting post! It's nice to see a civil discussion as well!

I'd have to say that in my experience there is almost always some piece of truth in these articles. Unfortunately many get tainted and spun by political leanings which tend to water down any real details.

I for one am not so quick to dismiss off hand anything in regards to the government anymore.

Rue- That Twinkie comment was hilarious!!! ROFLMAO

-----------------------------------------------
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:51 AM

ICCLEDAMES-

Since you are studying to become a journalist, I'd be interested to know what they teach in regards to Journalistic ethics and standards. It seems nowadays there is an extreme lack in those areas in regards to how news is presented and articles are written.

Right now I have a hard time trusting any Journalists. Particularly photojournalism, where Photoshop and other computer related software can be used to manipulate truth.

Also, what are your feelings in regards to unnamed sources? Do you feel they are abused and overused? What qualifiers do they recommend you use when determining whether a source is reliable or not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:53 AM

For a prime and timely example of the workings of "Whatreallyhappened.com," you all might find this of particular interest. Note the very limited personal opinions and the multiple links:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/londonarchive.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 12:21 PM

Seems to me that theres a lot of conjecture on this site COMPLETELY unsupported by any real evidence.
To be honest i happen to agree with *SOME* of the sites conclusions, but i am suspitious of any source that makes grandious claims/accusations and fails to back them up with even a shred of evidence.
Its all down to interpretation, you believe what you want to believe, and the authors of this site want to blindly believe that everyone is out to get them, which is just as bad as blindly believing that the powers that be have your best interests firmly at heart.
We are living in a time of too much information, so our views of the world are coloured by our pyches even more than before.

I also noticed that some possibly obvious motivations for the terror attacks in london were completely missed, the G8 for instance.

I was in central london at the time of the attacks, not far from aldgate tube station, on the day and watched the news reports on BBC News 24 and Sky News. I don't remember hearing the possibillity of Islamic terrorists being involved until late in the day, and then only as a possibillity. In fact the fact that it was a terroist attack at all wasnt clear until the explosion on the number 30 bus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 7:22 PM

CITIZEN:

"...but i am suspitious of any source that makes grandious claims/accusations and fails to back them up with even a shred of evidence."

Everything I've seen on "whatreallyhappened" has links to back up what is implied, usually more than enough to let you follow the reasoning.

-------------------------------------
"Its all down to interpretation, you believe what you want to believe...."

I'd argue that. I don't want to believe many of the things I have been led to believe by my thousands of hours of research, but I no longer have a choice.
--------------------------------
"...and the authors of this site want to blindly believe that everyone is out to get them...."

There is but one "author" of the site, Michael Rivero. and he is anything but blind.
==================================
Here is a link to an outstanding presentation of analytical thought that pokes holes in the "official" story of the lone "witness" to the bombing of one bus (Mr. Richard Jones):
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Numbe
r=293785242

And another that discusses so-called suicide bombings, a relatively recent anomaly:
http://www.libertyforum.org/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&ma
in=293783132&type=thread
------------------------------

In neither case have I made any personal judgements. However, both links show the sorts of questioning and well-reasoned arguments that, to me, invite serious thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2005 7:25 PM

CITIZEN,
Many of the links on the website are hard to see. They're highlighted in green, and you might easily miss some of them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:25 AM

I read a couple of stories linked from the main page (ones that were written by the site author rather than third party sources) and they seemed to have a story followed by a short paragraph that seemed to say, yeah whatever. They're conclusions at least seemed to be unsupported.
My main argument was that they cut out 'the other side' of the story as much as goverment/organisation loyal news sources.
The site showed reasonable conclusions that blamed the goverment or goverments while leaving out other possible and reasonable theories that gave conflicting explanations.
For instance no mention of the G8 conference as a motive for terror attacks in London could be found in the article on this site.

Maybe i was wrong, to a degree i'm working on first impressions, but it seems that the information on the site is coloured as much as mainstream sources are.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:42 AM

Ruxton
I'm sorry neither of thoes links worked for me.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:43 PM

I've just managed to open this link:
http://www.libertyforum.org/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&ma
in=293783132&type=thread

Just thought i'd post an alternative view:

Quote:
If the purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die, but to kill and to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society, why do they die?

Because its far easier and more effective both physically and psychologically to walk in with a bomb strapped to you than to plant a device.

Quote:
If the purpose of the suicide bomber is to end the occupation of his country, why is the suicide tactic not as old as war and territorial occupation itself?

Who says it isn't? Receant history: kamikaze pilots of japan during the second world war? Or of course refrences *MUCH* older than that:

Quote:
And Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.(Judges 16:30)

Quote:
During the Crusades, the Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships, killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as many Muslims.

It has to be remebered of course that suicidal attacks never would have been effective without explosives which are a relativly new invention.

Quote:
So it's not the fundamentalism, it's not the occupation, it's not suicide, it's not a guerilla tactic, it's the timeless strategy of the Jews working to advantage themselves on their journey toward dominion.

Yes all jews are evil, always looking for an angle to screw the rest of the world over for their own betterment. Is this one of thoes well reasoned arguments you spoke of?

Quote:
we should wonder why the occupying Israeli force was not targeted rather than the French and Americans who were on the periphery as peacekeepers. Just because a target is handy does not make it strategically worthwhile. If the planning was so tight that simultaneous truck bombs could hit these two marginal targets, why not use that expertise and tonnage to hit the one perfect target?

Part of the objective of terroism is to make their cause public. Attacking Israeli targets would be less effective than attacking international ones. French and Americans may also be seen as an ally to the israeli aggressor.

Quote:
After the Russian Revolution and WW I, Jewish/Communism was triumphant and ready to conquer Europe. All of Europe had been weakened by WW I. The threat of Communism called for an alliance of Europe against the onslaught. It was not to be because Jewish influence on Churchill and Roosevelt made impossible the only sensible alliance of all Europe against Stalin.

Absolutly, Hitler wasn't such a bad old salt after all was he?
There's also the fact that the 2nd World War was well underway by the time Winston Churchill became prime minister. Up until 1940 Neville Chamberlain was prime minister of Briton.

I've only picked little pieces from the article but much of it seems poorly researched, based largely on conjecture, sites only 1 source and seems to spend most of its time blaming the Jews and Israel for everything.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:18 PM

NEWS HEADLINES:
"Authorities told ABC News that records show Mohammed Sidique Khan, the eldest of the bombers now believed to be the field commander of the attacks, had called a person who is associated with the Islamic Center, a mosque in Queens, N.Y. Yet, a member of that mosque claimed they had no knowledge of the phone call."
[Posted Jul 16, 2005 02:17 PM PST]

ABOUT WHICH RIVERO SAYS:
"The 'Authorities' have a problem. They have been exposed as lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed link from Iraq to Al Qaeda and the supposed link between Iraq and 9-11, all of which turned out not to exist. We've seen a plethora of forged documents including the Niger 'Yellowcake' documents, and the document that smeared George Galloway.

"So now we're supposed to take the 'authorities'' word now?

"I don't.

"I don't believe anything either the government of the UK or the government of the US says now. Prudence demands outright dismissal of official statements by 'authorities' as total junk until proven beyond a shadow of doubt by an independent third party investigation."
=============================

I agree most wholeheartedly with Mr. Rivero. I am sick of being lied to by everyone in "authority." I'm old enough, and have done enough research, to know I've been lied to.

Enough is enough.

BTW, there are no mentions of the G8 conference being the target because it doesn't make any sense to link the two. (The conference was not in London.) There are other, more reasonable connections, which is why Rivero's site focuses on the other side of that story. The bombings seem to have been a false-flag operation with highly unlikely parallels to 9-11, including the simultaneous "practice drills" ongoing during both events. The odds of that being a coincidence are out of sight.

Citizen, I'm sorry I don't have time now to discuss the points you made. Two items seem to be peculiar, however. One, no Israeli targets have EVER been hit, and two, I don't buy the idea of "fanatics" wanting to blow themselves up, especially when one has a new family and when none of the "bombers" were particularly fanatical about religion. Muslim faith PROHIBITS suicide, by the way.

Mr. Rivero has, over the years, given much insight into many "conspiracies," such as the JFK shooting. A well-trained rifleman, I visited Dallas and know there is no way Oswald did the shooting as described, for instance, and whatreallyhappened has lengthy archives on that shooting. Therefore I tend to believe what he says because my experiences match his conclusions in most things.

Oh, one more thing. I noted that author's seeming bias, but the commonly accepted thought that the IDF and/or Mossad are BLAMELESS is far from the truth. Remember to ask "Who benefits" from such attacks, and ALWAYS qustion what you're told on TV. One of the things I retained from college was to always question everything if you seek the truth.

............Good luck, Citizen, and thanks for your time and considerate responses.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:12 PM

DIETCOKE

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
re:
Quote:
random ravings of loonies
Admittedly I only scanned a couple dozen links, and only for sources and headlines - however, many were links to respected US news sources (Wash Post, NYTimes), respected foreign news sources (BBC, Reuters, Toronto Sun, Financial Times) and other reputable US or international news sources I'm familiar with. There were sources I didn't recognize that neverthless carried stories that were broken elsewhere and have good 'conventional' media coverage. And there were news sources AND stories I didn't recognize, including a couple of Isreali news sources.

I didn't check out the selection of stories, but I suspect that's what you have an issue with.

Based on the credibility of roughly 2/3 of what I saw, I'm inclined to think most of what is linked is factual (with the caveat that it might have a pov and one should take that into account).

Well I'm not sure how creditable The New York Times is when it comes to reporting the news. While every newspaper is slanted either left or right, the New York Times is just WAY too liberal for my taste. It doesn't even attempt to show both sides of a story.

Love the film and theater section though!

NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 9:13 AM

Please note that the present official police story, which presumes the London bombers were tricked into the job, was presented a week ago by whatreallyhappened.com.

Yeah, he's just a loonie -- who NEVER believes what he's told.

Pay attention to a few good bloggers, NEVER TV news, and you'll be way ahead of the pack:

" BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15961272%255
E663,00.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Please note that the present official police story, which presumes the London bombers were tricked into the job, was presented a week ago by whatreallyhappened.com.

Uh?.. It said they "MAY" have been tricked into believing that they would have time to escape once the bombs were set. It said that they "MAY" have not been suicide bombers. It didn't say they were tricked into DOING the job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2005 10:02 PM

Connorflynn, you are right. I stand corrected.

However, the whole bombing thing seems mighty fishy to me. The "official" story keeps on changing. Will we ever know the absolute truth?

Doubtful, I'd guess.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Connorflynn, you are right. I stand corrected.

However, the whole bombing thing seems mighty fishy to me. The "official" story keeps on changing. Will we ever know the absolute truth?

Doubtful, I'd guess.

I have alot of respect for the British Intelligence and the British people. They've been dealing with this sort of crap for decades. In my opinion it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent every type of terroristic attack attempt. I commend them for their restraint.

If someone is intent on killing innocents, they will succeed eventually. The fact that they(The Brits) know WHO the individuals were/are goes a long way in solving the crime. The British government is doing its best to keep it's country updated on the whats/whys and hows. Unfortunately the MEDIA tends to jump the gun and make assumptions based on "anonymous" sources.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:07 AM

CF, What makes you think the Brit gov't knows who the bombers were? Isn't it possible they are lying? Do you not accept that as a possibility?

I tend to doubt the conclusions of those who seem to be eager to accept what they're told at face value, because I believe we'll get better answers in the long haul by questioning everything from all sources. This attitude forces us to ask questions of our own, such as, Does this or that make sense?, and Who benefits from this or that scenario?

All best,

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:31 AM

Further, in the case of the bombing misinformation, it's the official story that keeps changing, not the media coverage. A coalition of European terror experts found C4 traces at all four bombing sites. This finding was widely reported, and taken as accurate at the time. Then, when it didn't fit the desired spin, the explosive was changed to another chemical that turned out to be too unstable for use, so now there is yet another official story as to what was used.

The simple fact that Blair does not want an inquiry into the matter ought to send an immediate red flag up.

http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/french-terror-cop-leaked-bomb-plot
.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:05 PM

Personally I think there are some serious questions about this bombing that need answering. I lived through most of the years of the IRA's operation, and i remember those incidents being delt with very differently.
Do I think its most likely that this is the work of an extremist group in the name of islam? Yes.
Do I think my goverment would use the situation for their own pollitical advantage?
hmmm...

I have a slight problem with your source ruxton, although it does give two side to the story it intersperses them with personal opinions, and dismisses out of hand seemingly reasonable explinations. Not argues against them with reasoned arguments, just dismisses them.

The point is these sources as well as main stream ones have a biased view.
Lets remember that main stream sources still expose goverments and their actions from time to time.
Do these internet sites ever post a story that supports the goverment view or action? Or do we believe that our goverments are all permanently trying to pull the wool over our eyes about everything?

I'm not trying to attack these sites unilaterally, i'm just saying that it is foolish to say whatreallyhappend (for instance) is full of the truth the whole truth and nothing but, while mainstream sources just swallow the goverment line and help keep us sheep under control.

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:23 PM

Citizen:
I agree with you it's foolish to claim any website contains the whole truth and nothing but. In fact, the operator of WRH (Michael Rivero) and I have had plenty of arguments in various emails. He is not one to easily admit he's wrong, even though I pointed out clearly and unequivocally he WAS wrong, or failed to consider some things he didn't understand as well as I did. However, he does give the Devil his due on occasion. For example, WRH questioned (letters section) the rain on the ground in one of the "bomber" photos. A source in London said the weather was dry. But then, other London sources have indicated it was raining. Rivero has published all the letters, so you can see everyone's line of reasoning.

Also, Rivero maintains the official U.S. government position on a plane hitting the Pentagon (and provides evidence to support his conviction), though plenty of websites claim a missile (or something else) hit it. Along that line, why has the U.S. government siezed the tapes that show what hit the Pentagon? Why has the U.S. government failed to produce the black boxes from the WTC disaster? (Several witnesses claim to have seen them, and the witnesses, as so often is the case, have NOTHING to gain by making those claims.) Why has the MSM not covered the Downing Street minutes, discussed worldwide outside the U.S.? Why has the MSM not dealt with the fact that the Secret Service failed to remove Bush instantly from the goat-reading session? How did they KNOW he was not in danger, with planes dealing out destruction and with the whole world knowing exactly where Bush was at that time?

In my experience, the mainstream media is worthless. I occasionally turn on TV news for a few minutes, until I see something presented as being "the truth" that I know is a lie. The MSM continually presents firearms in a bad light, for instance, and that's enough for me to see an agenda that makes no sense.

Thanks for your insight.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:56 PM

Here's why I place no credibility on many websites that are not as thorough as WRH. Note the claim made in the second sentence of this article:
"The dust hadn’t even settled after the terrorist atrocities in London and already the conspiracy-theories and self-recrimination had begun. Unwilling to blame the actual perpetrators....[emphasis added] !!!

This dork implies he knows who did it. That makes his credibility ZERO.

Some time, when you all have nothing better to do, look up cognitive dissonance (I think that's the right term) and what commonly causes it. That's what many of us are facing here, particularly in the younger set who have their beliefs tatooed to their brains, which is the antithesis of learning.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:08 PM

Quote:
In my experience, the mainstream media is worthless. I occasionally turn on TV news for a few minutes, until I see something presented as being "the truth" that I know is a lie.

I can see why you say that. Many news source on TV and the tabloid press are more interested in sensationism (pretty sure that ain't a word but gets the point across) and rating than anything approaching true journalism.
Having said that the are are some good sources out there. The BBC, although goverment funded has its independence protected by law. As far as i know it is the only truely independent mainstream news source.
The BBC seems to me on the whole to be impartial and prepared to push for the truth.

Quote:
The MSM continually presents firearms in a bad light, for instance, and that's enough for me to see an agenda that makes no sense.

I havent heard a good argument FOR firearms, save for one that i make myself. Since they have been made illegal in my country (the UK) gun crime has risen.

Quote:
Why has the MSM not covered the Downing Street minutes, discussed worldwide outside the U.S.? Why has the MSM not dealt with the fact that the Secret Service failed to remove Bush instantly from the goat-reading session? How did they KNOW he was not in danger, with planes dealing out destruction and with the whole world knowing exactly where Bush was at that time?

I agree, though i have heard these points raised in the British press. I find a lot of the current terroist climate alarming, and this is in no small way due to this quote:

Quote:

Why of course the people don't want war... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, In Politics/Nazism

But now i must bid you goodnight, I have to be up for work in 6 hours... :(

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:21 PM

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

I look foward to speaking with you tomorrow.

EDIT :- cant do HTML links?
EDIT :- Ahh, it does it automatically! Clever, i really need sleep...

"No this must be what going mad feels like!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:03 PM

Citizen,
What I've seen/read from the BBC agrees with your estimate of it. Would that we had anything that good this side of the pond. I neglected to clarify that by MSM I meant the U.S. version. One forgets the whole world has access to fireflyfans.net.

Cognitive dissonance [C-D]:
When one is presented with an idea, such as, "Muslim terrorists had nothing to do with London bombs," and it is contrary to one's internal beliefs which, say, follow the "official" story as given by "authority" figures, which, for instance, may state that "Muslim terrorists did the bombing," one gets an internal conflict: dissonance in what he knows/believes to be true. The natural outcome of such a presentation is to deny the first idea (above). But it doesn't always end there. Commonly, other conditions or "escapes" are added, such as "Oh, he's a conspiracy theorist, so what he said must not be true." And that resolves the dissonance. But as noted at your link, that's the easier way out, not necessarily the better.

Per your link, Citizen, we have:
"Festinger proposed that cognitive dissonance is a "negative-drive state", a similar psychological tension to hunger and thirst ... people will seek to resolve this tension.

"Reduction of cognitive dissonance, Festinger believed, is good because one feels better, and because one can come closer to consonance by eliminating contradictions."

He cited an example of what most do, add a condition that makes things acceptable (as in my above example), but he implied that was the easy way around the problem. The harder way took more effort. I suspect most who want to believe U.S. TV news are in this easy-route category. The harder way would be to question everything, and go looking for those answers that made the most sense over the long haul.

Thanks again for your time, and a good link.

There's a discussion of C-D by a Russian at the link below, but it's long-winded and touches on a great many related things, including scary numbers on Ritalin use in the U.S. and its possible aftermath.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index782.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:06 PM