Please...

[Lithos]

Note that I just locked several threads concerning the recent rules changes and some of the fall out. I really didn't want to do that, but they were definitely below the standards expected of DU members and only getting worse. If you are going to use the new functionality, then please do so and avoid calling people out in the process; using it as a club to divide the community and forum is counterproductive.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Thanks Lithos

n/t

[SidDithers]

2. Apologies for my Hufschmid thread last night...

and thanks for removing it. I hadn't visited his site before and didn't need to share my over-reaction with everyone here.

Sid

[Kingshakabobo]

3. ooops. I just posted a Hufschmid thread regarding his......

.....cozyness with the loose changers, I hop it's ok.....delete if necessary. I assumed the other thread was locked because it mentioned, among other things, a banned member.

I felt it important to see what the loose changers are about.....they have some hateful ideas right below the surface.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. A lot of groups have hateful ideas

There are many who are much worse. Especially the gatekeeper types.

[Kingshakabobo]

5. What's a gatekeeper and can you give man example....

.....of what they do worse than deny the Holocaust and blame 9/11 on the Jews?

[Lithos]

6. A couple of comments

First, please do not comment about any poster, either those active or inactive. In the case of those who are banned, it is not appropriate to speculate as to why. Please also understand it is against policy for me to comment about the personal nature of any member which would include a comment about their membership.

Second, I think it is fair to say the Administration has consistently shown a tendency to lie not only for ideology, power and profit, but also because a pathological inability to admit mistakes. Given this, I believe it is reasonable for people to question the Bush Administration's record concerning 9/11. How far you wish to chase it is of course a matter for debate in this forum.

It is also a sad fact that the first people to suggest conspiracy behind 9/11 were groups with extremely strong ideological motivation who quickly tried to leverage the strong emotions behind 9/11 to help their causes. While there are some RW groups which have crafted an overtly conspiratorial view of Islam, the majority of these ideological groups were (and are) anti-Semitic. In the West, most of these groups have constantly used conspiracy as a way to attract people distrustful of the government who are looking for easy answers; these groups often take the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and wrap it up in the conspiracy of the day. 9/11 is no exception which explains our strong policy to the matter; DU does not wish to support or appear to condone these groups.

Examples include statements like "No Jews died on 9/11 because they were warned away", to "Israel through the Mossad and its spies, aka the Art Students, knew/planned/executed 9/11 to get the US involved in the ME". These same groups essentially lifted the same language for both the Spanish and London bombings and continue to do the same thing inside Iraq. Their tools are not facts, but rather innuendo, strawmen and sound bites designed to provide soothing, quick and easy answers. Sometimes it is hard for people to peer beneath these group's facade.

That said, there are many people who are challenging the official statements of the Bush Administration who are NOT swayed by these hateful groups and who have criticized the sourcing and statements made in movies such as "Loose Change". Many of these groups run the full gamut of ideas from cover up of incompetence to fabrication of the event, ala Northwood. It is wrong to lump them together with those who are purposefully muddying the water to promote ideology. Similarly it is wrong to attack those who say they liked something in movies such as "Loose Change" because they don't know the back story behind the sources; education is the only way to address such ignorance.

Yes, there may be some hateful ideas scattered around, it does not mean it is right to stereotype people in that manner. Conversely, I think it is extremely necessary for EVERYONE to learn about and educate themselves about these hateful groups and those who are more than willing to condone their actions and message.

Third, I think it is rather obvious the 9/11 forum has evolved to be a place where highly speculative theories are discussed. Even a few topics not directly relevant to 9/11, but espoused by prominent players in the 9/11 discussion are occasionally brought up here (Chemtrails, etc.) for this reason. The Moderators try to be very tolerant in this forum provided people behave themselves (no personal attacks), bigoted memes are not supported, and that all topics and ideas are handled with any necessary sensitivity. Please understand though that the more extreme the theory, the more extreme the reaction to be expected; and the more asbestos you should need in your under suit.

Lithos
DU Moderator

On Edit: Spelling

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Your comments are appreciated, Lithos n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. I appreciate your intervention in this forum, Lithos

I am hoping for a calmer forum.

[jschurchin]

9. Thank You Lithos.

Have a great day.

[greyl]

10. Fair, sobering post. Regarding the phrase "Official Conspiracy Theorists"...

It's used to label people who debunk debunkable 9/11 conspiracy theories as Defenders of the Bush administration. It's an attempt to poison the well against anyone who, as you put it "... are challenging the official statements of the Bush Administration who are NOT swayed by these hateful groups and who have criticized the sourcing and statements made in movies such as "Loose Change".
It's used to divide this community, seed hatred, and perpetuate the myth that are only 2 opposite sides to every story (a la CNN's Crossfire).

Having been to a DU meet-up in which 9/11 CTs were discussed peacefully (including Loose Change) by people who believed them, and by people who didn't, and that ended with smiles, hugs, exchanges of phone numbers, and zero feelings of ill will, it's especially sad to see any cynical divisiveness and demonization expressed here.

"OCTers" is a harmful meme, and is used as a personal attack.

[JackRiddler]

28. what a load

If you didn't use the meaningless CT term to label and magically dismiss all 9/11 skeptics, the phrase OCT would not have been raised as a well-deserved response. Boo hoo.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. One thing

I would like to see in this forum when the hypotheses of those who do not believe in the official story are being debunked, are some statements of what the debunkers believe is true and not true about the official story. (I don't think that those who believe in the official story, but also believe that the Administration was incompetent or negligent, can truthfully say that they have doubts about the official story, however.)

Were this to happen, then, I think that the term "OCT" would be correctly applied to those who have no doubts about the official story.

I also think that the term "CT" is a derogatory term that is often used here to disparage those who are presenting alternative hypotheses to the official story.

I appreciate, Lithos, that you can see that alternative hypotheses do not necessarily originate from anti-semitic sources, and that, in fact, the Administration has done nothing to convince us of it's trustworthiness, but, instead, has shown itself to be anything but trustworthy.

[rman]

12. Is it appropriate to ask a mod or admin why someone was banned?

And what is the policy wrt replying to such a question?

[seatnineb]

13. I would like a mod to explain why Mirandapriestly has been banned n/t

[SidDithers]

14. .

Edit: not my place to give supposition why she was banned. Lithos may or may not want to comment.

Sid

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

15. I don't think so. You could check the detailed rules for a clue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=10393

[Lithos]

18. The policy

Is to not reply as it is between the member and DU Administration. This comes directly down from the Administrators, but I do think it is a very good idea.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[rman]

21. Not reply in the forum, i gather -

I can understand that.
But how about replying to a PM or email asking about why a member was banned?

Or do you mean the banning is between the banned member and DU admin - in other words, any ban is no business of the forum community of which the banned member was a part?

[Lithos]

22. The latter

There have been only a handful of exceptions and they were all handled and socialized by DU Administration.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[rman]

23. thanks for clearing that up. nt

[Andre II]

16. Very well said

I agree with basically everything you've said and personally it is beyound me why we can't simply discuss facts ...

Still, I really don't understand why my thread on Operation Gladio from GD was moved here after two posts only.
Operation Gladio is a historical fact. Proven by EU Commission, EU Parliament, Italian Parliamant, Italian tribunal etc etc etc
The only source I've quoted is BBC.

I think it is EXTREMELY important to realize that false flag operations are part of history as are conspiracies. (This in fact doesn't prove anything concerning 9/11) Only then we can move beyound the constant accusation of seeing conspiracies everywhere and look at the facts.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. A better example

Two guys, standing on a corner, see a robber shoot a bystander.

One of the guys, says, "Holy cow! Did you see that guy shoot that woman?!? He just shot her!!"

The other guy say, "No, wow! I saw him use a mind beam to make her shoot herself!"

The first guy says, "Um, no, that guy shot that woman, dude."

The other guy says, "It just looked like that to us, but it was really the guy's mind control. It made us think we saw him shoot her, but she shot herself."

The first guy backs up from the other guy, pulls out his cell phone, and calls the cops.

The other guy keeps talking, "Hey, be sure to tell them that a Jew did it."

The first guy says, "What? Are you crazy?"

The other guy says, "Why do you people always go there? I'm not an anti-Semite, I'm an anti-Zionist. And besides, he's obviously a Jew. What do you think the Mossad has been working on for the past two thousand years? Mind control. You see mind control, you know it's a Jew."

The first guy walks away from the other guy. The other guy goes home and starts making a movie about how some Jew got a lady to shoot herself using mind control, using the first guy to corroborate his story. He charges $19.95 for the DVD copies. The first guy spends the rest of his life, denying that he saw some Jew getting a woman to shoot herself using mind control.


It turns out the second guy is a notorious anti-Semite and Ku Klux Klan member.

Oh well, I guess that robber did not shoot the woman, and the first guy is wrong about the shooting.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. LOL!

Sounds crazy enough to be true!

[Andre II]

25. And here we go again

It turns out the second guy is a notorious anti-Semite and Ku Klux Klan member.
The typical cliché mixing up everything ... but you yourself are annoyed if people use the inversed cliché an calling OCTer "Bushists"?

[Make7]

26. In order to understand the post that you replied to....

... you really should read post #19. Without reading that post first, the context of the response is completely missing.

- Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Thanks, Make7.

AndreII, your first clue might have been my post's title: A better example.

That line you object to was quoted verbatim from the now excised post.