Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Ah, what the hell - for completeness:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
Thats not the same as the lead story of the eveing news.
The readership of those articals is next to nothing.
A saw a very borning analize of this done by the press themselves, on late night cable.
They admit it, the press overwelmingly supported kerry and they estimated that it helped him to about 10% of the vote. IIRC
The readership of those articals is next to nothing.
A saw a very borning analize of this done by the press themselves, on late night cable.
They admit it, the press overwelmingly supported kerry and they estimated that it helped him to about 10% of the vote. IIRC
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Big fat hairy bollocks. It was all over the news. I couldn't switch on the TV or look at the internet without seeing stories about it. I got so utterly sick of it I was even asking other bloggers to please, please, not post stuff about the bloody Swift Boat Veterans, even if it was debunking them, because it was both counter-productive and also driving me mad. It was the biggest non-story ever.pbman said:
What a pity that a pedantic picky person spoiled this thread. Go on. Guess who I mean.
FridgeMagnet said:
The talked about the influence of it, after the story couldn not be ignored anymore. The didn't talk about the actual facts of the case.......
But when the swifties started, they were complety ignored by the press.
Thats a fact.
They talked endlessly about bush's service and possible problems with it, as their lead story.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
No, it's not a fact. The press mentioned as much of it as they could get away with without being Rathered. They were utterly obsessed with it, but there was no way they could repeat the Swifties' allegations, because they were just false and they'd be shown up by other networks and channels.
They talked about Bush's service too, but that was irrelevant bollocks as well, even if it was based on truth. These people are only interested in getting airtime based on whoever is shouting loudest, and with the Swift Boat Nonsense, the Republicans were shouting loudest. The Democrats were too pussyish to fight back. They didn't have a Karl Rove or anything like one, and they ignored their grassroots (who *were* good) unless they were completely on-message. They didn't have the media skills.
They talked about Bush's service too, but that was irrelevant bollocks as well, even if it was based on truth. These people are only interested in getting airtime based on whoever is shouting loudest, and with the Swift Boat Nonsense, the Republicans were shouting loudest. The Democrats were too pussyish to fight back. They didn't have a Karl Rove or anything like one, and they ignored their grassroots (who *were* good) unless they were completely on-message. They didn't have the media skills.
FridgeMagnet said:
In late summer after the RNC convention.
The swifties broke the story in may,IIRC and were completly ignored.
They had to raise the money themselves and air their own ads in order to get any press coverage at all. And at that point they media was forced into it by all the tv ads, and by the kerry camp, wanting them to help do damage control.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
pbman said:
Dude.
You're weaseling....
slaar said:
But this is not the complete picture. It's not just iraq and afghanistan that they've done since 911. There's all the internal security and attendant laws they've passed, and there's all the other stuff they want to do. All of which needs in effect the permission of their voting public.
That permission is being constantly granted in the climate of fear that has subsequently gripped the country, thanks entirely to the events on that september morning. The attacks particularly clicked with the american psyche (hollywood and all that). The internal repressive laws also help to quell any dissent from becoming widespread.
editor said:
As long as there have been elections, they have been rigged, whether by gerrymandering, intimidation, or fixed Diebold machines. So what? Democracy has become a joke anyway. The amusing thing is that there are still people like pbman who think there is actually some difference between Reps and Dems.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Both the Green and Libertarian Parties have complained about the Ohio elections. I don't think their views should be dismissed lightly.
No I dont either but this subject of who won the elections belongs in another thread. 
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
How the hell did this happen? 
Exactly. The US has a long tradition of doing this - the sinking of the battleship Maine, the 1898 Spanish-American War in 1898, through to the contrived attack on the US battleship Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 along with the fabricated attack by Egypt on Israel in 1967, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan and to a repeat of the same themes in the latest attack on Iraq in 2003. Each time it has been accompanied by the same media frenzy, the attendant framing of the enemy (as evil personified) and the attacks on US symbols of authority send the public into a frenzy of anger and hate. A group think campaign then prevents any serious questioning and those who are critical are labelled unpatriotic Americans.fela fan said:
"It is easy. All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the opposition for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Herman Goering
Those that see this pattern are then contemptuously dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
editor said:
editor said:
If some of the posters here were even to write that much in a post, I'd be flabbergasted. lol. (see http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2813212&postcount=475 for Raisin's transcription of Zwicker)
But seriously, Zwicker is using an argument called 'ad misericordiam' (another to add to add hominem) which argues that something is true because if it is not, someone will suffer:
"There must be a solution, because otherwise we will all perish!" [o]
For someone who claims to be a skeptic, Zwicker can still be seen to be using the rhetoric and writing tactics of the 'mainstream'. He displays as his 'proof' the vague feeling that one is being lied to by some authority. 'Paranoia'. From this point forward, I feel compelled to substitute the term 'Paranoid' for 'Skeptic'. Indeed, in the mainstream media one often sees those two words juxtaposed. Even more cunning is the way Zwicker blames the consumer of mainstream media for the media's manipulations by calling them 'complicit'. Here, there is a subtle hint of symbiotic relationship between the skeptic and the media; that the media cannot be 'blamed' for it's reports, only those who believe it's stories. Seeds of doubt are sown in the mind of the Media's Fool (it's readership).
Statements such as "We are in a multiple crisis" and other doom-laden rhetoric pave the way nicely for his totalitarian authoritarian distopic future vision (one presumes this is ill-fated punishment for 'complicity' and inability to disinguish false stories from true stories with regards to the populace who are the main-grist when weaving 'media theory').
Skirting round the main issue by actually failing to show the passage of real conspiracy theories into conspiracy probabilities into actualities, Zwicker gets by just fine using inference that readers of Main-Media are 'fools', and keeps the focus of the essay firmly on 911 skeptics, carefully attaching a series of floating attributes to broaden the sweep of Zwicker's skeptic-attracting-net.
Of course, Zwicker misses the point entirely. The 'point' with regards to 911 was never 'are the US Govt. telling the truth' about the attack itself, but "Why?" Why was the WTC in Manhattan the focus of an attack from a rogue Saudi and his 'organisation'? The focus on USA Afghanistan and Bin Laden does appear to be linked to a time in politics when both Saudi and US Governments were shoring up the Afghani fight against the Soviet Occupiers during the 1970s and 80s. Now this rogue muhajadeen commander has been alleged to have directed an attack against WTC in Manhattan, why ?" Surely every moment spent not discussing the cause & effect of the attack but instead discussing the fact that the media 'lies' (mainstream or otherwise) is a wasted moment. Oh the irony of it all.
Here in his last paragraph, Zwicker's 'call to arms' uses 'spiritual war' rhetoric to rouse the 'we' from their 'sleep', normally such rhetoric is the preserve of clergymen waking his flock to spiritual group-conscience, and military generals preparing the troops for battle. War rhetoric is by it's very nature, anxiety provoking [o]. Zwicker prepares #the flock/the masses/the reader:an 'i in a we'# for 'unnamed' future change, psycho-mass-media style, in a way guaranteed to speak only to a few 'the 911 skeptics' and thus the brainwash to the lowest level is achieved, and the joke is on the reader. You will not be exempt from the media's reach. Listen to the radio. Read my voice. 911 Skeptics Unite. Roadmap up ahead. You didn't have a roadmap ? Here, use this one we prepared for you earlier.
editor
hiraethified
Total drivel.Raisin D'etre said:
The Power of Nightmares TV series, for example, managed to superbly get the point across without anyone declaring them "conspiracy theorists".
But perhaps that's because they didn't feel the need to refer to endless dodgy websites claiming invisible missiles, Mike Yarwood calls, imploding WTC towers and all the rest of the unscientific, evidence-free, untested, non-peer reviewed fluff that gullible here soak up like willing sponges.
And, unlike you, they supported their arguments with expert testimony from highly qualified individuals, not some bloke who likes to go running and the usual anonymous, self-declared web "experts".
Do you agree with the Power of Nightmares premise, that aQ are an illusion then ed?
Exactly! This is a good critique IP and I do agree with everything you wrote. In effect, he stands at the same end of the spectrum as the warmongers, appealing to the same emotions and use the same doom-laden language and adopting the same tactics.invisibleplanet said:
editor
hiraethified
It didn't state that "aQ are an illusion" - it questioned whether they were an organised network or not, suggesting that governments were keen to exploit this 'fear' to further their agendas.Raisin D'etre said:
Huge difference.
Notably, the program didn't support any of the bonkers "it woz the US govt who did 9/11/invisible missiles/pretend planes/Mike Yarwood" theories either.
I agree with those findings. Do you?
Indeed Backatcha B, and there can be little question that these papers provide a rare glimpse into a type of covert operation that must have surely occurred many times, and remained secret.Backatcha Bandit said:Aw. Don't go, slaar.
I think almeria was trying to point out that in the history of entering/embarking upon large scale military actions, in every case (that I can think of, though please do correct me) the public consent for such action has been artificially manufactured in some way.
This has generally taken the form of provoking an attack and then allowing it to happen (Maine/Lusitania/Pearl Harbor) or deception (Tonkin/Glaspie/WMD's).
We get an insight into the processes at work by looking at the Northwoods documents, where we see the Joint Chiefs of Staff presenting options for staging an incident designed to mislead the people into supporting a war (in this case with Cuba).
Some may argue that the deceptions outlined in Northwoods are somehow 'not relevant' as they 'never happened'. It has been said that the very reason they 'never happened' ended up with his brains all over Jackie's lap not long after, but the point is that the various sick scenarios presented were seriously considered as viable options. Had they actually been carried out, I doubt we'd be able to read the discussion documents in the US National Archive.
It would appear there are no moral limitations when it comes to advancing the interests of the military-industrial complex.
It's interesting that no-one to my knowledge on these boards has ever attempted to argue that the plot - which involved the faking of Cuban terror attacks - would not have succeeded.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you're obsessed! and what is it with your repeated use of some sort of baby language?editor said:
how is it being a "thread-diverter" when i try to prevent you going off on one of your dreary nitpicking tangents?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the sinking of the maine was the spark for the 1898 - 1902 spanish-american war.Raisin D'etre said:
but i doubt that there's a deliberate conspiracy reaching from 1898 or before to the present day. if there were, one would rather hope that the puppeteers would get more competent, not less, at their manufacturing of consent and their fake incidents to gain congressional, if not public, consent for their adventures.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
still hungover?editor said:And he's off again!
Similar threads
- Locked