Should 9/11 skepticism be made illegal?

[noise]

President Obama and President Bush have both cautioned people to stop questioning 9/11. A bipartisan commission has already investigated 9/11 and released a transparent report. Sadly, some people are never satisfied and keep moving the bar. This is likely because they have an unhealthy psychological need to cling to their conspiratorial views.

A few people who believe in some variation of 9/11 conspiracies have committed violent acts.

It's unpatriotic to doubt government officials, especially when the country is at war.

There is no way the government could have covered up anything sinister. Thus criminalizing 9/11 skepticism will help put an end to this foolishness.

9/11 skepticism is a distraction from real issues.

9/11 skepticism makes activist organizations look bad.

[SDuderstadt]

1. I'm a debunker and I voted no...

n/t

[Theobald]

2. I voted no

It is impossible to make stupidity illegal.

[LARED]

3. If made illegal how would it be enforced?

I'm not advocating this, as free speech should never be hindered no matter how dumb.

[noise]

4. Discretion of law enforcement

We can trust them to be fair and not abuse such power.

After all, this principle worked at Guantanamo as every detainee there was proven to be a terrorist.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Making skepticism of 9/11 "illegal"...

would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.

[defendandprotect]

6. Obama's agitation with those who don't believe 9/11 was interesting . . .

presumably reflects the experation of those he's surrounded by.

This is simply another cover up in a long line of coverups from JFK, to
MLK, to RFKJ -- Iran Contra - October Surprise -- S&L Theft and Embezzlements -
BCCI.

It's not going to work, Obama. Only an honest investigation will work.

[jberryhill]

7. That's just stupid

Do you have some need to feel "oppressed"?

Voted no.

[noise]

8. What is with all the no votes?

This is a decidedly unpatriotic result.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Any more stupid posts? (n/t)

[jberryhill]

10. You're going to have to get over your misguided assumptions...

...about people who disagree with you on the subject of whether 9/11 was an attack by foreign terrorists.

Just because someone does not believe that the Bush administration was actively responsible for 9/11 does not mean that person is some sort of right wing authoritarian. Time and time again, you have demonstrated an inability to wrap your head around that.

[SidDithers]

11. I voted no, but I do partially agree with your last 2 lines...

some 9/11 skepticism is a distraction from real issues.

some 9/11 skepticism makes activist organizations look bad.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

12. Oh heavens no, what would become of DU's armchair experts?

noise, I think I get where you're trying to go, but the same people you'd expect to be for banning it, practically live in here. It's sport to them.


And with a few possible exceptions, I believe the OCT *do* cherish the 1st amendment.

[SDuderstadt]

13. ''a few possible exceptions''

I'd love to hear who you believe does not actually embrace the 1st amendment...

[Ohio Joe]

14. No

"President Obama and President Bush have both cautioned people to stop questioning 9/11. A bipartisan commission has already investigated 9/11 and released a transparent report. Sadly, some people are never satisfied and keep moving the bar. This is likely because they have an unhealthy psychological need to cling to their conspiratorial views."

I recall bush saying something about questioning 9/11 but I forget what and can't find it. President Obama though... I think you mis-represent what he said.

"A few people who believe in some variation of 9/11 conspiracies have committed violent acts."

True. Not a reason to make it against the law though.

"It's unpatriotic to doubt government officials, especially when the country is at war."

Doubting, questioning and generally keeping elected officials in line is the highest form of patriotism... IMHO.

"There is no way the government could have covered up anything sinister. Thus criminalizing 9/11 skepticism will help put an end to this foolishness."

This is way to vague to be used to justify anything.

"9/11 skepticism is a distraction from real issues."

Again, true but also again, not a reason to make it against the law.

"9/11 skepticism makes activist organizations look bad."

Also true and also no reason to make it against the law.

[whatchamacallit]

15. This one is idiotic

"A few people who believe in some variation of 9/11 conspiracies have committed violent acts."

True. Not a reason to make it against the law though.

If these "violent acts" are not directly related to one's beliefs about 9/11, isn't it just as easy (and equally pointless) to claim a lot more people who believe in the OCT have committed a lot more violent acts? Imagine if CTers made it a practice to scour the background of every nutcase murderer that comes along to determine if they believed the official story, just so they could post that irrelevant fact in an attempt to shame the OCT.

I'm heartened to see the mods locking transparent and despicable 'smear by association' threads.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Again, the "OCT" is a truther strawman...

but it falls just short of a "smear by association", despite the best efforts of "truthers" to tar those who merely disagree with them on the facts as "believing the OCT" or "you support Bushco".

[whatchamacallit]

17. I agree, "you support Bushco" is unfair

But it's even more below the belt to post what every random scum bag murder's 9/11 beliefs are.

[Ohio Joe]

18. I made no smear against anyone

I also did not give it as a reason to squash 9/11 ct talk, the OP did, I simply responded to it. The statement is true, I am also sure it is true that there is a lot of violence and murder done by people that do not buy into 9/11 CTs. Hence, my statement that it should not be a reason to outlaw 9/11 CTs.

If you feel I am making a smear by association, please alert the mods.

[Marksbrother]

19. You mean the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, right?

"people that do not buy into 9/11 CTs."

Since True Believers won't state what it is that they actually claim to believe and since they seem to embrace multiple
9/11 Conspiracy Theories, depending on what they encounter in posts, it's only fair, in my judgment, to use the plural of
theory.

[Ohio Joe]

20. Please search the forum for my name

I think I have been very clear and very consistent about my thoughts.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Ohio Joe, I wasn't calling your post idiotic

I was commenting generally on the notion that a criminal's beliefs are germane, even if his crimes are unrelated to those beliefs. Sorry for not being clear.

[SDuderstadt]

22. In defense of whatchamacallit....

he wasn't calling your post idiotic, OJ. It could have been clearer and I can see how you could interpret it the way you did, but I think it's clear that was not his actual intent.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Dayum!

Thanks Sduderstadt! I appreciate your understanding.

[SDuderstadt]

24. No problem, my friend...

It was clear you weren't referring to OJ's post, but I can see where he took it the wrong way. Just think of me as a basically good guy who often disagrees with you on the facts.

[Ohio Joe]

29. ahhh, I was wrong. I apologize - nt

[jberryhill]

28. Sometimes there is a "package deal"

In Von Brunn's case, he had concerns about the Illuminati, the Federal Reserve, and a constellation of issues which are often sold as a set with raging anti-semitism.

That he was of the "the Jews did it" school of 9/11 belief is not so much a connection between his 9/11 belief and what he did, but that his particular species of 9/11 belief is simply another symptom of his anti-semitism generally.

I guess what I'm driving at is this:

Someone who says, "9/11 was a foreign terrorist attack" may be anywhere on the political spectrum. Could be a liberal democrat... could be a "let's lock up Muslims and torture them" nutjob. That person may well know that we got into bed with certain Arab extremist elements going all the way back to undermining Nasser as part of an overall cold war strategy, or may be pretty much blissfully unaware.

Someone who says "9/11 was an inside job" of differing varieties can still hold any number of other political beliefs, but it is highly unlikely they supported the Bush Administration.

On another thread, I mentioned that when you have certain overlapping expressed belief sets, then you can start to make probable valid assumptions about someone's overall belief set. Von Brunn, for example, was an example of the class of individuals who simultaneously believe that (A) "9/11 was an inside job" and (B) "Obama is not a natural born US citizen". Those two beliefs tend to intersect when you are dealing with a head case, and the dual occurrence is a good signal that the individual subscribes to one of relatively few "overarching conspiracy" sets of beliefs. Knowing those two things about Von Brunn, for example, it comes as no surprise that he apparently subscribes to certain other beliefs about the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati, etc. As it turns out, yes, he is one of those "the Jews done it" types of folks.

The overlap of belief (A) and (B) is interesting because it really sets those particular folks apart from a large class of other believers in A or B. For example, a lot of (A) believers are motivated by a deservedly-earned thorough disgust with the Bush Administration and Dick Cheney in particular. Hence, yes, a fair number of (A) believers are Obama supporters who strongly reject (B).

Conversely, a lot of (B) believers are Bush supporters who categorically reject (A). For example, Joseph Farah and Orly Taitz are leading birthers, and rabid supporters of far right Israeli political views.

This puts the A+B (i.e. "birther" and "truther" to use shorthand) folks in something of a class by themselves. This class includes, Von Brunn, Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, and so on.

[whatchamacallit]

31. I won't argue the validity of your analysis

But I still contend posts about some nut's 9/11 beliefs add little to the debate, other than to say "Hey truthers, look at the shitty company you keep!"

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Well, if we eliminated posts about some nut's 9/11 beliefs from this forum... n/t

[jberryhill]

33. Oh, I know... there's always that....

It's the normal Crackpot v. Bushco Shill thing that few in the DUngeon can avoid.

I'm less active here because I'm more fascinated with the birthers, who have done things like issue "citizen grand jury indictments" of the president, and are making noises along the lines of carrying out "citizen's arrests" of various government officials, including the president.

Whatever particular theories one believes concerning various historical events, there is a virulent strain of birther that seems headed on a course toward engaging in socially harmful action.

[Subdivisions]

25. Yes.

People need to learn to shut the fuck up and toe the party line (EDIT: was "tow" but got popped by the spelling police). If the government says it, IT'S THE TRUTH! To question otherwise is treasonous. To catch these traitors, thinking and speech must be regulated.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Oh, for Pete's sake....

show us where anyone proposes to do anything remotely like what you are claiming. BTW, it's "toe the line", not "tow the line".

[Subdivisions]

27. Thanks for the correction, spelling police. Sometimes my

w and e keys get really close together.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Sorry....I just thought you had a problem with homophones...

not saying you're homophonic.

[noise]

34. That seems to be a popular view

Authoritarianism=patriotism. Government officials always act in good faith. If publicly stated policy goals aren't achieved it merely means that the policy makers were incompetent.

One must repeatedly ask why government officials are held to such a low standard of conduct.

[Marksbrother]

35. Only applies to government officials who are Democrats

"One must repeatedly ask why government officials are held to such a low standard of conduct."

"Heckava job, Brownie."

[defendandprotect]

44. +1000% --

[Bolo Boffin]

36. kick

[Ter]

37. Whoever voted yes needs to leave America now

n/t

[greyl]

38. We don't know that they were in America when they voted. ;)

I thought it was a disingenuous vote, myself.
Poe's Law.

[defendandprotect]

39. "A few people who believe in some variation of 9/11 conspiracies have committed violent acts" -- ???

What are you talking about in that reference?

[noise]

40. The stories typically linked by SLC which associate 9/11 beliefs

with violence.

The intention of the OP was to once again highlight the authoritarian nature of thought in US society when it comes to 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Yay!

You managed to work in the "authoritarian" angle!

I knew you'd come through!

[defendandprotect]

43. Again, what violence? And who is "SLC"?

The intention of the OP was to once again highlight the authoritarian nature of thought in US society when it comes to 9/11.

"Once again" ... ?

Certainly, if there is any "authoritarianism" involved in thought re 9/11, it comes from

the government. Do you recall Obama demanding that the 9/11 truthers stop thinking what

they're thinking?

If you're familiar with the "investigation of 9/11" you know that they spent $3 million on

it with a very short period of time for it, as well -- while they spent $70 million

investigating Clinton -- and on many other investigations -- way more.

And, that Bush resisted for almost two years agreeing to any investigation!


You seem to be working under some confusion --

This is a debating website -- issues are discussed and debated -- that's not "authoritiarian"

that's how forums work.

You post an OP like this giving us your opinion -- we then give you our opinion. That's all.

And you're entitled to keep debating your opinion as long as you wish.

What about that disturbs you?

[noise]

45. I was referring to government/media/debunker authoritarianism in the OP

Using their talking points. Pushing their view to the extreme--"If questioning 9/11 is so dangerous, so unpatriotic, so distracting, then why not make it illegal?"

SLC=the website screw loose change. They post news stories of violent acts committed by people who question 9/11. The intent being to suggest that anyone who questions 9/11 is potentially unstable and/or violent.

[defendandprotect]

46. But your post isn't clear as to all of that --

There's no link to the website you're referencing --

therefore, it looks like YOU are saying what you posted in your OP --

This still isn't clear --

A few people who believe in some variation of 9/11 conspiracies have committed violent acts.

Can you either post a link to the website SLC or tell us what "violence" specifically they

are suggesting has occurred?

I was referring to government/media/debunker authoritarianism in the OP

Using their talking points. Pushing their view to the extreme--"If questioning 9/11 is so dangerous, so unpatriotic, so distracting, then why not make it illegal?"

My apologies -- I didn't get that from the way you presented it in the OP --

SLC=the website screw loose change. They post news stories of violent acts committed by people who question 9/11. The intent being to suggest that anyone who questions 9/11 is potentially unstable and/or violent.

I find that quite amazing -- and think we should know what "violent acts" they are saying

have occurred?

Rather it is right wing rhetoric, as we can see in the case of GOPs/"pro-life" murderers -

and GOP's/NRA - and GOP's T-BAGGERS -- which have resulted in violence in America.

[hack89]

42. No - it is too much fun. nt

[LeftishBrit]

47. Of course not.

In a free society, people have the right to believe anything they want - it doesn't mean that others have a duty to agree with them.

{'Scepticism' by the way is an odd term for believing that 9-11 was an inside job.)

I don't think the evidence supports any of the conspiracy theories. The one that Bush dunnit, or the one supported by many on the right that Saddam dunnit.