At 11:37 04-08-2012 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
I only know about it from the list. Are we closing in on fraudulent
conspiracy evidence? Is that what it smells of to high heaven?
>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.
It goes without saying that as a Dane I don't take much interest in
American politics. But here I find it more necessary to use the
phrase "Keep the eye on the ball" and then ask the question: Who or
what is the ball to keep an eye on?
If we are to talk conspiracy, then my ball is the conspiracists. They
are far outside of the meaning of the word politics, and they have
an agenda of their own, which is anti-government.
And now I wonder how the "secret government" in the US is supposed to be
perceived? As consisting of 100% neocon Jews?? If it's 80% out in the
open for everybody to know about in plain normal politics?
>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.
I did not see this coming. If it hadn't been for her parents I would, as
far as anybody can know, have married an Jewish/Israeli penpal in 1969 after
her 2 year draft service and after a couple of years with her here in Denmark
have moved with her to Israel for good.
In early June 1967 I was returning home from Sweden to be met on the railway
station of a newspaper poster about war having broken out down there. What
to do, I decided to go forward with my plan to hitch-hike through Europe to
visit her. I stayed with her, her parents and her brother for 3 weeks. The
only effect of the war for their village had been a rocket hitting a water
tower that had been taken out of use long ago. Her parents were both
Holocaust survivors, her mother a Russian having fled 3000 km to survive,
her father was in Poland, but apparently he never ever talked about his
experiences. The daughter born 1946, conceived while Hitler was still alive!
There is something about that, which I still don't know and would love to
find out: Where were they, what were they thinking, how could they already
have been married, and what did he have to do to survive, is that why he
never talked about it, he was ashamed of it and didn't want anybody to know
about it (I know a thing or two from survivor interviews, that's why I
suspect it).
So suddenly this hits close to home here. In late 2009 I decided to try to
track her down, and when 2-3 months of searching the net had let to nothing
I got the idea, I have to hire a gumshoe, I can't do it alone, so I paid
an agency in Israel. That cost me some $1300, and after a couple of false
leads they came up with the right one, and I had my first phone talk ever
with her in January 2010. After 2 months and 1 week I had to give up having
any more contact with her ever again. She remembered nothing whatsoever
since opening the door for me in her parents house or the remaining 15
months of our past relationship and refused to take it seriously! One night
after having tried for a couple of weeks to beg and plead and threaten her
to see a therapist I simply deleted my Skype connection to her and the
Gmail account I had been using.
I didn't bother to email her first. I'd rather defend myself against a
rabies-infected dog than her and her now both dead parents. I thought I
owed her to find her again for her fights with her parents for 15 months
about marrying me. I had done that, it was all for nothing for the
second time with her attacking and insulting me in defensiveness about
her parents (!), so enough already, I owe her nothing anymore.
Lawry, as coincidence would have it you used the word for it right below
here: dysfunctional! That's her and her family with her brother being a
possible exception, but whether he is or not I have no way of knowing.
Obviously I wasn't visiting him in 1967, and he wasn't much around in
the house anyway, so I've never had much of an impression of him.
So yes, I know something about Israel and Israelis. I have had to.
Oops, I got your paragraph moved all the way to the left here:
======
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.
And now me: Yes, I'm aware of that, of course. But on the other hand,
if you treat someone as the new enemy even just in national politics
you are going to get one, the same one. You're stepping on corns,
and they don't appreciate it. They want you off, even if they have to
shoot you a bullet between the eyes first. So to speak. Isn't that
what 9/11 was all about? Is there anything implausible about it?
Americans don't just get out of their country as tourists. They have
armed forces all around the globe. It's gotta piss somebody mightily
off once in a while.
>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.
Hmm - some of it I remember now that you say it. I remember vividly how
he was. Am I mistaken about the scientific validation from at least one
physicist, or do I mix it up with something else? I would have to dig
deep into my archives to find out. I had to jump to welfare issues instead
in late 1998, so it's a really long time since I've been involved in that
stuff. I have a habit of checking and re-checking, but it didn't occur to
me that I might not remember correctly about Uri Geller.
>I hope these observations are of interest.
Absolutely, Lawry! Not the least the Geller business. But I don't mind being
filled in about something I don't take primary interest in. The neocon perc.
Jews I didn't know about, but hey, that's the name of the game, you can't
know everything about everything before uttering an opinion.
Viggo.
>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
>><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>_______________________________________________
>Futurework mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
