Anonymous,

You don't understand. I don't CARE if you believe in crackpot conspiracy theories. I don't consider it my lot in life to try to convince people who believe kooky things otherwise.

As I said in another discussion:

Terrorists feed off conspiracy theories, you hear it all the time. Moderate Muslims might not be swayed by the existence of Israel, or even the plight of the Palestinian people. On the other hand if they are told that he US is conspiring to make excuses to invade Arab countries, and are offered a disjointed set of spurious facts to prove it, the more gullible are apt to take notice.

Conspiracies take it from philosophical differences to an overt threat. You can't say people aren't more apt to act when threatened.

No different here. Our home-grown terrorists don't just say "Down with the government", they use elaborate conspiracies filled with black UN helicopters and the Trilateral commission to unite the paranoid against a common enemy. Simple angst against the government doesn't lead people to commit acts like Oklahoma City, they have to justify it with an ornate web of evil rushing to destroy their world.

What people like Moore are giving the Arab extremists is a mythology to exploit. The more tangible the mythology, and the more authoritative the source, the more it will stick. Moore has set himself up to be a Bulfinch for at least one chapter of Arabic conspiracy theory, and has done it to make money. I find that pretty mercenary and irresponsible, personally.

Draginol,

I think I do understand - you cannot come up with anything to refute what I claim was reported as truth (not what I said I believed) in many different media outlets, so you ridicule instead. (Please count how many times I have personally ridiculed you in our exchange - 0!)

You address none of my points and simply attack my character - AGAIN - for bringing up good questions, saying that I am promoting "crackpot conspiracy theories" when in actuality all I did was say there are some tough questions that need to be asked and pointed out some stange circumstances that may make the average person ask those questions. I offered no theories, only questions and YOU then called it a conspiracy theory to take away the credibility of the questions.

Instead of addressing my questions with good answers (for or against doesn't even matter) you just SCREAM that it isn't true (without ANYTHING TO BACK IT UP) and that anyone who asks about it is a left wing conspiracy theorist crackpot. That is not a good way to exchange ideas or thoughts and is very closed minded.

You can say as many times as you want that I am a wacko, but that does not really answer the questions (THAT A LOT OF US HAVE) regarding 9/11, who knew and when - it avoids them like the plague! By simply calling anyone you don't agree with a wacko or crackpot, you let us all know that you really don't have any answers and if the things I was talking about were true, your world would fall apart, so you ignore those things and SCREAM DOWN anyone who brings them up with name calling.

BakerStreet,

You are the one who brought up speculation about Black Helicopters, the TLC, etc. - NOT ME!

Somehow, you equivocate those things with things like Willie Brown being told by Condi Rice not to fly on 9/11 - a clear indiciator of foreknowledge!

Why dismiss what has been reported as fact as a "conspiracy theory" before investigating further? Simply because "it can't be true" is not a good answer when looking at criminal behvior.

Anyone still wonder why I don't allow anonymous comments on my blogs?

Do you realize the impossibility of keeping such a conspiracy secret? Do you realize how many people would have been involved in a plot of this kind?

And more importantly, do you think the 9-11 commission was completely in the dark to all of these questions, even though every conspiracy theorist in a tin foil hat can recite them by rote? If not, are you proposing that the 9-11 commission is in on it?

In that case, is there *any* possibility of ever finding anything out? If you can coordinate dozens or hundreds of people to execute the destruction of the world trade center in complete silence, and rig a bi-partisan congressional investigation, do you really think that Micheal Moore, much less some "Anonymous" guy, really has a bead on what really happened? What are the odds of making idiotic mistakes like warning Willie Brown and then carrying off the rest so perfectly?

Come on. When has anyone ever been able to perpetrate this kind of a conspiracy? Oh, wait, all the time, we just don't hear about it, right?

Advice: when your pet theory is espoused on thousands of websites that regularly use the word "Zionists", you might wanna rethink things.

"Why dismiss what has been reported as fact as a "conspiracy theory" before investigating further? "

Ah, but it has been investigated, by a bi-partisan congressional committee. Are they in on it too? I personally think it is more like a conspiracy hypothesis, or even a conspiracy fantasy.

Do you feel you are better situated to investigate this than the 9-11 commission? If not, do you think you are more qualified to spread spurious information? If you aren't in the position to investigate something, are you really correct in leveling charges? Since when are people guilty until proven innocent?

I wasted 5 minutes of my time and found the original SFC article on teh Willie Brown thing, read it here.

It seems it was nothing specific, he doesn't bother to say what was even said to him, he often got calls telling him to "be careful", and another article mentions that the actual warning was concerning this warning about Al Qaeda targets in Korea and Japan.

In addition he went on intending to fly the next day, something Mr. Anonymous doesn't care to say. I dunno where the nutty Condi Rice stupidity comes from, but it is no doubt a scary place...

There's some balancing information here that addresses some symptoms of this nuttiness: The 9/11 FAQ.

Addendum: Here's another interesting site. Good quote from that one:

"why would Rice give such a warning to Willie Brown, who wasn't in any danger, but not to administration official Ted Olson, whose wife died on Flight 77?"

IMHO these questions are so easily answered that I'd delete any posts that pose them. Just more tin-foil hat stuff.

You know, it would be nice if Draginol answer the questions that have been posed. Or is the tinfoil hat getting in the way? You've been asked nicely--if you state that you believe what's been said by the conservatives so far, it's fine. At least defend your views--right now, you look like one of those pansy liberals you dislike so much.

Sigh....us peasants on either side don't count for much. Look at the posts: one says Bush is great; one says Bush is the anti-Christ; one says the Moore film is propaganda; and the next says it raises good questions. Unfortunately, who the f*&( is listening to us? We all know damn well that knew about the seriousness of 9/11. Unfortunately, they may have been dismissed with a "tinfoil hat" theory--and here is the result.

Let's face it, most likely if you're a conservative, you're going to think that the majority of actions following 9/11 are fine. If a liberal, then the opposite. But what does this arguing do? Does this help us get more than 0.25% interest in the banks? No. Does this help most of us be able to stretch our dollars in order to save more for a rainy day? No.

Damn, people--give it a rest. You know the powers that be could give a flying f--- what a bunch of peasants posting arguments here (and elsewhere on the net) think. Frankly, if you think that any politician is worth arguing over, then pretty much all of you are crazy. At least Moore and Bush are rich.

I have about as much interest redigging up the refutations of your various conspiracy theories as I do in looking up sites that debunk the various theories on the Kennedy assassinations.

I am not interested in convincing the gullible who buy into crackpot conspiracy theories because, frankly, they're not worth my time.

You're right Baker, I probably shoudl stop allowing anonymous posters to comment on my blogs. Left wing or right wing, the conspiracy crackpost theorists really get on my nerves. It takes a lot more effort to debunk a crackpot theory than to come up with one.

"I have about as much interest redigging up the refutations of your various conspiracy theories as I do in looking up sites that debunk the various theories on the Kennedy assassinations.
I am not interested in convincing the gullible who buy into crackpot conspiracy theories because, frankly, they're not worth my time. "

Why do you post then ?
You just want to spread youre idea of whats important/true and not bother to answer those that say that things might not be as black/white as you say.
Anyway I should stop reading posts like youres and do something usefull. I agree with
"At least Moore and Bush are rich."

"Isn't the Governator an republican?" Barely, just barely, and basically just because he says so himself..

Now this is just plain silly. Why is Schwartzenegger just barely a Republican?

Because he supports abortion rights? So does Rudolph Guiliani , Michael Bloomberg, and others.

Because he supports stem cell research? So does Nancy Regan, Warren Hatch, and others.

Because he supports gun control? So does Lincoln Chaffee, Pete Wilson, and others.

In the United States, anyone belongs to whatever party whenever they say so. If you're willing to say "I'm a Republican," you qualify to be a Republican. Marilyn Manson is a Republican, because he says he is. Certailnt he's not a Christian Coalition Republican, but I have no doubt that he favors lower taxes and a smaller, less involved government. If you're willing to say "I'm a Democrat," that is the only qualification you need to be a Democrat. In our two-party system, political parties are SUPPOSED to be diverse. There is supposed to be a wide range of disagreement in them. Both of our parties proclaim to be "big tent parties", which means that there is more than one way to be a Republican and more than one way to be a Democrat. There are liberal Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) and there are conservative Democrats (like Zell Miller.)

Sorry, Pat, but I am not sure how you can be pro-Gay rights, pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control... and still vote for Bush. You're essentially voting for someone who has nothing in common with you, except, perhaps, a bit of economic philosophy.

If you are a Republican that has to vote Democrat every time, are you really a Republican? At what point does what you believe not matter? Granted, one of those issues wouldn't disqualify anyone, but all of them???

It reminds me of the Kerry/Catholicism debate. I find it hard to understand how someone, again, pro-gay rights, pro-birth control, pro-abortion, etc., etc., can call themselves Catholic. Isn't it time to redefine yourself?

I mean, if you are "pro" all those things, one would assume you have a vision of the world with those things being accepted. Why would you vote for someone that you know will do as much as they can to defeat them?

I find it hard to believe that we are reaching a time where the only true difference between a Republican and a Democrat is economic philosophy. The fundamental definition of conservatism isn't just monetary.

"1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change"

Someone whose ideals are skewed that far out couldn't really be called conservative, could they... in anything but economic philosphy. If the Republic party is reducing itself to a catch-all party for anyone that isn't tax-and-spend, then maybe I need to rethink my own affiliation.

"if you're already in the looney left wing camp "
"Moore is little more than just some ranting left wing idealogue "
"they've elected him king of the loonies"
"bullshit"
---Draginol

"This is how Democrats argue. Instead of engaging ideas, generally you're either an idiot or a fool..."
---Ann Coulter (CNN Crossfire July 5, 2002)

By the way Drag, some of us do keep very tedious track of day-to-day politics, and some of us still manage to come up with the conclusion that a second Bush term is a bad idea.

These "conspiracy theories" that you refer to with the Unocal oil pipeline. Sure, disagree with them, but that does not mean you throw out the Unocal ties with Karzai and Khalilzad who then get put in high positions in Afghanistan (such as president of the nation) a mere week before those very same people sign off on that very pipeline. Disagree, but at least find your own counter-theory instead of blindly disagreeing. As for the Saudi relationship, Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud" never got such vehement arguments levied against it... and he was interviewed directly by Moore in much of "Fahrenheit 9/11". Unger is not all of these bad things, right? Why is Moore for quoting him and interviewing him? Not a single fact in the movie has ever been refuted, it is the opinion Moore speaks in the voice-over that is generating controversy. Drag, I'm sorry to say, it's the Right this time that's got the conspiracy theories emerging. Moore gave a series of facts that were organized to provide his view, take what you will from the movie, but please don't come trying to assault people for your disagreement.

People need to look into the concept of "skepticism". It is easy to string together a set of completely reliable facts and then imply that all together they mean something sinister, especially if the listener already has a propensity to believe that there are dark forces with sweeping power.

As to #41, I guess I would have to say... so what? To me this speaks less about how corrupt Republicans are than how naive the average Bush critic is. You think it is any different on the other side of the aisle? You think Clinton didn't make shady deals on a grand scale? Everyone involved in foreign policy manuvers themselves and their friends into positions to capitalize on it. You have to look at the actual changes, not the subsequent profit.

This oil stuff is neither the ends, nor the means, it is the by-product. By-products are just gravy. You might as well fault heart surgeons for driving Jags...

As has been said by me and others, numerous times, who gives a damn if peope made money? Would you prefer people funding the Taliban and Hussein, or a free Afghanistan and Iraq? Please, stop pretending that there are people in leadership positions that are there for only selfless, non-profit reasons. There aren't.

Give up, there is no tooth fairy. If you can understand the concept of "power vacuum" in Iraq, then you can understand it in terms of business.

Vorhandenheit,

Very well said. I follow these forums and other political discussions and there is something I have see constantly. Many on the right utterly REFUSE to speak in facts and references, preferring to insult and pretend that they don't see the actual facts that are posted. I have seen many, many, many of Draginol's comments and he fits that profile perfectly. If something that fit in with his preconceived extreme right wing views then he ignores them, even if facts are thrust in his face. Notice how every where you look, and listen, the right is claiming that Moore's new film is full of lies, yet not one of them has produced a single lie, and when you ask them to, they don't. In fact, many of the people making the claim of lies haven't even seen the film. I get the impression that they really DON'T want to think for themselves; they want to be told want to think, and if Rush Limburger, Bill O'Lielly, Mike the Savage, or Shawn Insanity say that it's full of lies, that's good enough for them.

J

Its no use arguing with a right wing activist like this.Its like talking to a brick wall.

I always love it when the left tries to spin dislike of Moore into being pro-Bush.  I'm not particularly pro-Bush. I just don't have patience to argue with people who buy into conspiracy theories so easily.

Bakerstreet was nice enough (nicer than I would be) to dig up some links that debunk many of the "questions" posed by the conspiracy theorists. 

Someone claiming, for instance, that the jews were behind 9/11 and claiming that the jews had been told to not go to the WTC on 9/11 isn't even worthy of a response at this point because that kind of BS has been debunked soo many times.

I'm not interested in discussing poliltical issues with gullible conspiracy theories of the left or right.  People who buy into Michael Moore's tripe are really taking a litmus test. Anyone who buys into Moore's bizarre and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories is just not worth putting energy into discussing with and I am more than happy if those people meander off to some other website to discuss their latest crackpot theory.

Simply put, people who think oil is a major motivator what went on in Afghanistan or Iraq are, at best, ignorant (Iraq's GNP was $20 BILLION annually. Oil is an important resource but it is not a particularly lucrative one but knowing that would require a basic grasp of economics).

Drag.... you just said that oil is not a particularly lucrative resource... and you are calling others ignorant.

EDIT: By the way Drag... according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the GNP of Iraq pre-war was about $50 Billion. That's why the oil there was going to pay for the entire war (not, it seems, because oil is not particularly lucrative). I'll go dig up the congressional hearing if you'd like. Right now Iraq is sitting pretty at about $15 Billion GNP.

The answers to the majority of these questions are already out there. The whole vibe of propaganda these days seems to be lie - be refuted - move on (moveon) to lie somewhere else.

The fact is, Moore doesn't say anything. Moore asks questions. Since when do we have to spend countless hours to prove allegations wrong in order to be innocent? It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove these allegations.

So the mentally challenged go from site to site, asking "the hard questions". They get bit, their arguments refuted, and then they move to another site, like a fungus. A regular on a site like this will see new dolts come in over and over and over, replaced by new dolts the next day.

In that light, why should we have to refute these questions numerous times a week? Should I keep a form answer on my harddrive to paste everytime a conspiracy nut appears?

It is akin to me accusing someone of murder on a message board, and unless it is proven incorrect every time it is asked, everywhere it is asked, it is somehow a indisputable. What if we simply don't feel we have to dispute such drek?

Why should we have to refute "questions" at all? If your allegations are in the form of a question, then, frankly, answer them yourself, WITH PROOF, not supposition. 9-11 has been exaustively investigated by people far more informed than the tin-foil hat brigade.

The point though, isn't getting answers to these questions, it is the patently dishonest tactic of asking leading questions in order to poison people against Bush. If they answered them honestly there wouldn't be any propaganda value. As I said previously, I could string together completely unrelated, completely untrue facts and pose situations that are comepletely false. You see it with the Roswell/Black Helicopter/Bigfoot people all the time. In this case, though, I think the most vocal know that the accusations are untrue and just don't care.

From now on, I would simply refer such folks to the 9-11 commision. If they think they are more informed than them, or that the commission is fixed, then frankly you'll never be able to reason with the nuts anyway.

Vorh, feel free to look up the GNP of Iraq. It's not exactly a secret.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

GNP ~$20 billion.  Heck, their GDP is only around $38 billion.  The US has spent over $200 billion in Iraq. Even if the US managd to suck every ounce of oil out of Iraq it would take 20 years to break even to where we are today.  In short, it wasn't about oil.  If you want to find people motivated by oil money talk to Chirac.

Bakerstreet: Exactly, the conspiracy theorists crank out their unsubstantiated theories and then demand that others disprove them.  It doesn't work that way.

Besides, there ARE sites dedicated to debunking this stuff that these people could go to.  One decent one: www.moorewatch.com. 

Oh and speaking of ignorance and the "it's about the OILLLL" crowd, Iraq's total exports are only around $7 billion per year.  So even if the US just sat there taking all the oil Iraq was pumping out and paying itself it would take decades to pay for the cost of US action.

Like I said before: Ignorant people think oil is lucrative. It's not. It's an important *strategic* resource but it isn't valuable enough to motivate politicans to put people's lives at stake for personal enrichment. There are much easier ways to make money than stealing oil (stealing bottled water would be more lucrative).

I'm not particularly pro-Bush.

It would be interesting to see you support that contention, by showing what ideas or policies of his administration that you disagree with. Otherwise, I see it as a throw-away line trying to show that you're in the "middle" holding sort of a neutral position...

Ignorant people think oil is lucrative

Come on, realistically, the whole industrial machine would break down without adequete amounts. It's kind of like suggesting that water's not all that important, just because there's little cost to it. Oil greases the skids for trillions of dollars of production - and to suggest that isn't important or *worth fighting for* is ... well what's a polite word for it? Naive perhaps?