Greetings, Viggo Quick thoughts and questions re. the points you bring up:
1. Do you have a citation for the BBC report, especially the date? I have a pretty extensive collection of UbL statements and interviews, but not this very interesting one. 2. At the time of the September 11 attacks, and generally under the Bush administration, US foreign policy was under the control of what we call the US neocons. About 80% of the most influential neocons are Jewish. This does NOT mean that they put US interests second to their perception of Israel's interest. Rather, one has to look at the positions that they advocated and implemented and decide whether those policies were in the best interest of the US. And while it is possible to be very critical of those policies -- impacts of which we are still paying for today -- we have to consider that nonetheless the American neocons in positions of responsibility to the US thought that what they were doing was in the US interest. And this leads us into the very interesting relationship between the US neocons and the Likkud party. Anyway, this is a long and complex story. Unfortunately, because Israel is so readily and automatically called "the Jewish State," it has been easy for too many analysts and observers to confuse "Israeli" with "Jewish." When Israel was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a heroic and moral state, this redounded to the benefit of "Jews" worldwide. But now that Israel's behavior is coming under heavy and deep criticism, rightly or wrongly, "Jews worldwide are being identified with this behavior. This is, in my opinion, very unfortunate. The growing insistence among Likkudists on the identical identity of "Jews" and "Israel" suggests that this situation will become worse: criticism of Israel is identified as "anti-semitic" by the Likkudists, and by anti-semites, all Jews are being blamed for the actions and characteristics of Israel. In this lies a tragedy in the making. 3. Much of American politics -- and I am not sure how far back this goes, but it could be argued that it goes back to the first European settlers in America -- is based upon having at hand an existential and demonized enemy. The British, the Spaniards, the Native Americans, the Chinese, the communists, Islam have all been systematically and dysfunctionally identified by main-stream Americans (with the focused goading of parts of the press, big business, politicians, etc.) as a massive, powerful existential enemy. Given the habituation of the American people to this kind of thinking, it is not hard to line up a "new" enemy whenever one is needed by this os that interest group. But of course, this is a two-edged sword, as today's "ally" can become easily become tomorrow's "enemy." 4. I am not aware of any scientist who fell for Geller. Specifically, I know that the scientists at Stanford Research Institute who spent quite a bit of time testing Geller through many tries ended up merely insisting that it was impossible from their study to conclude that Geller was doing any of any scientific validity, and that somehow every time he showed up to be put through an experimental protocol he refused to stay within the protocol. They terminated the study when they concluded that Geller was doing this deliberately. I hope these observations are of interest. Cheers, Lawry On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Viggo Andersen wrote: > >> I offer no speculation as to who did it, nor have I studied the myriad >> conspiracy theories that do so. I guess that the myth will control the >> public history of the matter. >> >> Cheers, >> Lawry > > I've spent years on everything from science to newage beginning 20-25 > years ago. Not specifically 9/11 more than skimming here and there, > but the general knowledge - expertise is a bit much - that I have is > still very invaluable for any such subject. > > You are right about "the myth", because it's either that or someone > fessing up. The UFO mania has been tugging along for decades and is > never going to get resolved, because it is just as impossible to do > that as it is to solve every single crime on the planet. > > The latter, mysteriously, has not been turned into a conspiracy > or a claim about "reptile aliens dunnit!". Well, don't give up hope, > it can still happen. > > I'm a bit rusty with these subjects, I've done other stuff in later > years, but I was actually writing on something about the bin Laden > quotes. It's as good as it can get I think, so here goes: > > ======== >> I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United > > States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a > > government within a government within the United States. The > United > States should try to trace the perpetrators of these > attacks within > itself; to the people who want to make the > present century a century > of conflict between Islam and > Christianity. That secret government > must be asked as to who > carried out the attacks. ... The American > system is totally in > control of the Jews, whose first priority is > Israel, not the > United States. -- Osama bin Laden (Reported > by BBC) > ======== > > Am I the only one that can see from this that bin Laden had been > reading American conspiracy literature? The only statement I'm not > sure about is the one about the Jews. The character of it, yes, that's > typical American conspiracy reasoning, but I am not sure about > anti-semitism or attitude towards Jews among those people. In any case > the claim is absurd. What nonsense it is that the first priority of > Jews, many of them, in the US should not be Israel, it's not even news > to anybody, and of course Jews have influence in the US, but that does > not translate into full control. > > Other than that, the 9/11 conspiracy claim is done away with very > fast, because something so mind-blowing and horrifying could never > have happened in America without conspiracists crawling all over it to > "disprove" the official explanation and attempting to replace it with > their own "alternative" and "real truth" version, because that is what > they always do, and they have been doing it for decades. They start > with their conspiracy framework that the government can never be > trusted, and then they go looking for something to support it, and > what do you know, you can even find (or fabricate!) support for just > about anything that is provably false. > > Occam's Razor and a Bullshit Meter are required tools here, otherwise > you're risk getting bamboozled. Conspiracists may be incompetent in > all other respects, but not when it comes to believing their own > bullshit and getting others to do the same. You also need more, a > critical mind, the willingness to seek out opposing views, reading > scientific and other fields of knowledge. First and foremost, don't > just believe anything! If you don't feel sure one way or the other > about something, so what, you don't have to. Unfortunately, those who > care about such advice probably don't need it, and those who need it, > well, they don't even want to hear it. > > Personally I don't care "who dunnit" meaning: can it be pinned on bin > Laden. What's interesting to me is not that, but why so many will seek > out fringe explanations supported by piles of evidence amounting to > nothing while at the same time ignoring that if their own government > was responsible, then it requires a confession as proof, because it is > unheard of for a democratic society! Extraordinary claims require > extraordinary evidence. Without it the plausible and established > explanation stands until proven wrong with that confession. > > If 9/11 had occurred just 3-4 years earlier I would have known a lot > more specifics about related conspiracy claims, but today I don't feel > a need to go in-depth with it, because it is well within human > capacity to fly passenger planes into skyscrapers on a > suicide/massmurder mission into an enemy country. It is entirely > plausible without a shadow of doubt in sight, and the same goes for > motive in the political context. > > It's right here too in the bin Laden quote. He knew nothing for a fact > about a "secret government in a government" in the US, because then he > would have had to have a man at the top US government level, and how > would that have been possible? It's just a claim he made, he didn't > substantiate it in any way, but then it's worth nothing. He had read > it somewhere or made it up himself (don't think so, he clearly - > judged on the other claims - wouldn't have needed it), and he probably > believed it, who cares. > > There's still the possibility that he was lying through his teeth > despite his insistence to the contrary. He wanted to point the finger > at his arch enemy, the government of the country that he was not at > peace with himself no matter whether he had anything to do with 9/11. > SOB. Blaming the victimized country for having massmurdered a large > number of its own citizens and some from elsewhere, all innocent > people (just like the American conspiracists). Then he insists that as > a Muslim he was against doing something like that. Are you kidding me? > Peace-loving pacifist and oh so humane bin Laden? War also means > killing innocent people incl. kids, because try as hard as you may > it's just not possible to avoid. And it is a very long time ago that > it was. > > The only 9/11 claim I can remember from previously is the one about > the impossibility of the towers coming crashing down the way they did > without explosives having been ignited inside the buildings, something > like that. Who says they couldn't? No problem for a conspiracist, he > just finds someone with appropriate credentials that will confirm it > and substantiate it in some way, because it is always possible to find > at least one somewhere that will do it. > > That's not the way you prove anything. I'm not going to make the point > here that the majority is always right, but that the equivalent in > science is consensus. Science is not a one-man-show. If you don't have > the support of your peers for something it is at best science on > standby, until and unless you can get it. > > It may be unknown to many, but yeah! Scientists can also be crackpots > inside or completely unrelated to their field! Remember the testing of > Uri Geller, the "spoon-bender"? Physicists validated that. But > magicians did not, and he couldn't stand having them hanging around > and much less letting them do the testing. Then he couldn't "perform". > > There's a sucker born every minute, and a higher education is not > necessarily a cure of it or a guarantee against it. > > Viggo. > > P.S. I should probably say that I'm not Canadian, American, British > etc. I'm Danish. And I'm not new to the list. I think it's the first > time I post, but I've actually been subscribed since - uuh - 1998? > Something like that. So yes, I'm also aware of Pete on the list, but I > don't know if he would have anything to say about any of this. But I'm > sure he will if he has. My age, 67. Old geezers and nothing much else > on mailing lists anymore - those of us that used them long before > webfora existed. > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
