I promised on the Eagles board to address some of ah_19's comments on conspiracy theories, so feel free to join in if you wish or ah_19 may wish to comment on what I say. If it's in quote marks, it's taken directly from ah_19's previous post:
"the sad fact wtih the majority of my posts regarding s11 is the fact that all the replies were like yours, "youre an idiot cos you dont beleive in what everyone else does", not ONE reply had anything wtih atempted logic or reason in it, like "i know you beleive that ah_19 but the proof below is that its not like that, here is the proof etc etc etc..."
This is a complete misrepresentation of the thread concerned, in which many, including Bluey I recall, were moved to post replies that questioned the validity of your sources and the logic that you applied, as well as trying to consider the many confused facts and opinions surrounding this terrible event.
It is also a complete misrepresentation of my position on the issue. I have never ever pretended to suggest that the majority or unanimous view is always correct. I have said you are an idiot on two occasions because of your obsession with conspiracy theories and your sticking up for suzi olsen.
"why do you call yourself voice of reason? if you are use it"
I called myself Voice of Reason as an ironic even sarcastic moniker taken from a columnist in an English newspaper many years ago (I think it was the News of the World or the Daily Mirror). He was Woodrow Wyatt, previously a Labour MP and by that stage a shameless apologist for Margaret Thatcher. He was a hypocritical old git and Tony Benn wrote a note under his pillow sayiong "go away Woodrow" when he went away once because Wyatt was obsessed with Benn's (rather attractive) American wife. And thank you for asking.
An argument, in the famous words of Michael Palin, is a related series of statements intended to establish a proposition. When I reason with you, I am attempting to put forward a viewpoint based on facts, perceived facts, opinions, hearsay, deduction and inference. It is my view - it may not be right. But it is reasoned and usually reasonable (unless it is sarcastic or intended to be humourous).
You have been criticised before for failure to acknowledge your sources and regularly post long posts that are uncritical repetitions of others' conspiracies and opinions. Sources, facts, interests, vested and other, are important to understand before claiming a conspiracy.
"An example of this was in Germany when Adolf Hitler wanted to pass 'anti-terrorist' legislation. Hitler wanted the power to detain people without question and hold them in custody without a court hearing. The people of Germany wanted no such thing. So Hitler had the Reichtag building burned to the ground. He then blamed terrorists for this terrible crime. The media portrayed the event as a danger to society and people's welfare. The people demanded something be done so Hitler introduced his new anti-terrorist legislation with the people's consent. I hope this method sounds familiar to you because it is used in all aspects and at all levels of society. Pay attention to the anti-terrorist legislation being passed due to terrorist incidents which are occuring today. The people who do not understand these things are simply being decieved and yet know it not. "
Now, one of the things you didn't know about me is that I have a first class degree in history. I studied Nazi Germany and the facts, as they were discovered later - and suspected by some at the time - were pretty much as you say. Hitler, supposed threat to society of Communists, "terrorists" (though that is a pejorative term), Reichstag Fire, Repression, Nazi dominance of Germany, 2nd World War.
I suggest it is very hard to get the facts at the time if someone is concealing them. One of my roles is as a fraud investigator. You have to do your best to identify the facts and you can't expect the guilty to give them to you.
Where I disagree with you is not in the facts - it is your inference and deduction. In particular, "because it is used in all aspects and at all levels of society." That deduction is an inference that because it happened in Germany in the early Thirties, therefore it is happening today in 2001 in modern western society. You are generalising from the specific of Nazi Germany. That is illogical.
"Pay attention to the anti-terrorist legislation being passed due to terrorist incidents which are occuring today. The people who do not understand these things are simply being decieved and yet know it not."
There are so many differences between Nazi Germany and modern USA, Australia, Britain etc. The media, technology, the judiciary and the rule of law, democracy, levels of education, economic wealth, for example. All of these make your analogy, in my view, unsustainable. I don't agree with you. I also find its implications offensive, as no doubt would the relatives of many dead people around the world today.
"http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/awaken/index.htm
i think this is a great introductory article for those who thinks conspiracies are crazy, like it says, if they didnt exist, how did hitler come to power, how did communism fall, how did communism rise, isnt that the job of the cia? fo counter them and to implement them?? or dont they exist?"
Here we have another error of logic in your argument. It is not reasonable to say that because there have been conspiracies that have happened, everything that happens is a conspiracy. That is like saying: the Greek man over there has a beard, therefore the bearded man on the other side of the road is Greek. It may be true, especially if the street is in Athens or Melbourne, but it may not.
I have never said that there are no such things as conspiracies. Conspiracies happen. I have attempted to prosecute people for conspiracy (it is very hard to prove, but I know it happens). It is an offence under Australian law, which attracts substantial penalties. But bear this in mind from someone whose job it is to investigate corporate fraud. If you have a choice between conspiracy and stuff-up (error, incompetence, laziness, unintended consequence), 8 or 9 times out of 10, it's the latter.
Now with politicians and governments, and certainly secret services, the rates may be different, but I submit not much, when you consider all the things that happen that aren't conspiracies. Politicians, and lots of humans, particularly the weak ones, try to cover up their mistakes and that can lead to conspiracies.
Once you start to see conspiracies everywhere, you become a conspiracy theorist, which is a form of paranoia. Fearful and distrusting of everything, you lose the ability to form objective judgements. That's what I'm reasoning anyway.
"the sad fact wtih the majority of my posts regarding s11 is the fact that all the replies were like yours, "youre an idiot cos you dont beleive in what everyone else does", not ONE reply had anything wtih atempted logic or reason in it, like "i know you beleive that ah_19 but the proof below is that its not like that, here is the proof etc etc etc..."
This is a complete misrepresentation of the thread concerned, in which many, including Bluey I recall, were moved to post replies that questioned the validity of your sources and the logic that you applied, as well as trying to consider the many confused facts and opinions surrounding this terrible event.
It is also a complete misrepresentation of my position on the issue. I have never ever pretended to suggest that the majority or unanimous view is always correct. I have said you are an idiot on two occasions because of your obsession with conspiracy theories and your sticking up for suzi olsen.
"why do you call yourself voice of reason? if you are use it"
I called myself Voice of Reason as an ironic even sarcastic moniker taken from a columnist in an English newspaper many years ago (I think it was the News of the World or the Daily Mirror). He was Woodrow Wyatt, previously a Labour MP and by that stage a shameless apologist for Margaret Thatcher. He was a hypocritical old git and Tony Benn wrote a note under his pillow sayiong "go away Woodrow" when he went away once because Wyatt was obsessed with Benn's (rather attractive) American wife. And thank you for asking.
An argument, in the famous words of Michael Palin, is a related series of statements intended to establish a proposition. When I reason with you, I am attempting to put forward a viewpoint based on facts, perceived facts, opinions, hearsay, deduction and inference. It is my view - it may not be right. But it is reasoned and usually reasonable (unless it is sarcastic or intended to be humourous).
You have been criticised before for failure to acknowledge your sources and regularly post long posts that are uncritical repetitions of others' conspiracies and opinions. Sources, facts, interests, vested and other, are important to understand before claiming a conspiracy.
"An example of this was in Germany when Adolf Hitler wanted to pass 'anti-terrorist' legislation. Hitler wanted the power to detain people without question and hold them in custody without a court hearing. The people of Germany wanted no such thing. So Hitler had the Reichtag building burned to the ground. He then blamed terrorists for this terrible crime. The media portrayed the event as a danger to society and people's welfare. The people demanded something be done so Hitler introduced his new anti-terrorist legislation with the people's consent. I hope this method sounds familiar to you because it is used in all aspects and at all levels of society. Pay attention to the anti-terrorist legislation being passed due to terrorist incidents which are occuring today. The people who do not understand these things are simply being decieved and yet know it not. "
Now, one of the things you didn't know about me is that I have a first class degree in history. I studied Nazi Germany and the facts, as they were discovered later - and suspected by some at the time - were pretty much as you say. Hitler, supposed threat to society of Communists, "terrorists" (though that is a pejorative term), Reichstag Fire, Repression, Nazi dominance of Germany, 2nd World War.
I suggest it is very hard to get the facts at the time if someone is concealing them. One of my roles is as a fraud investigator. You have to do your best to identify the facts and you can't expect the guilty to give them to you.
Where I disagree with you is not in the facts - it is your inference and deduction. In particular, "because it is used in all aspects and at all levels of society." That deduction is an inference that because it happened in Germany in the early Thirties, therefore it is happening today in 2001 in modern western society. You are generalising from the specific of Nazi Germany. That is illogical.
"Pay attention to the anti-terrorist legislation being passed due to terrorist incidents which are occuring today. The people who do not understand these things are simply being decieved and yet know it not."
There are so many differences between Nazi Germany and modern USA, Australia, Britain etc. The media, technology, the judiciary and the rule of law, democracy, levels of education, economic wealth, for example. All of these make your analogy, in my view, unsustainable. I don't agree with you. I also find its implications offensive, as no doubt would the relatives of many dead people around the world today.
"http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/awaken/index.htm
i think this is a great introductory article for those who thinks conspiracies are crazy, like it says, if they didnt exist, how did hitler come to power, how did communism fall, how did communism rise, isnt that the job of the cia? fo counter them and to implement them?? or dont they exist?"
Here we have another error of logic in your argument. It is not reasonable to say that because there have been conspiracies that have happened, everything that happens is a conspiracy. That is like saying: the Greek man over there has a beard, therefore the bearded man on the other side of the road is Greek. It may be true, especially if the street is in Athens or Melbourne, but it may not.
I have never said that there are no such things as conspiracies. Conspiracies happen. I have attempted to prosecute people for conspiracy (it is very hard to prove, but I know it happens). It is an offence under Australian law, which attracts substantial penalties. But bear this in mind from someone whose job it is to investigate corporate fraud. If you have a choice between conspiracy and stuff-up (error, incompetence, laziness, unintended consequence), 8 or 9 times out of 10, it's the latter.
Now with politicians and governments, and certainly secret services, the rates may be different, but I submit not much, when you consider all the things that happen that aren't conspiracies. Politicians, and lots of humans, particularly the weak ones, try to cover up their mistakes and that can lead to conspiracies.
Once you start to see conspiracies everywhere, you become a conspiracy theorist, which is a form of paranoia. Fearful and distrusting of everything, you lose the ability to form objective judgements. That's what I'm reasoning anyway.
