the ascent of 'counterknowledge'

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Michael Moore is a polemicist.

Actually according to the man himself he is an "entertainer".

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If scepticism is to have any value then surely it needs to be a bit more rigorous in its methods of inquiry than simply dissing anything you don't happen to agree with. Thats almost as useless as taking information as verbatim truth without questioning it. Neither approach furthers knowledge or understanding.

To explain, I start from a sceptical viewpoint because my past experience of history, politics and conspiracy theory encourages me to do so. I suspect I am also by character naturally inclined that way, which I suppose you could call bias. I acknowledge that, but I find it's usually more useful and, in narrow terms, "correct" than simply believing anything you read on the internet.

I'll answer your original question more carefully.


Did members of the Israeli security service Mossad have prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did they watch and film these attacks from across the water in New Jersey, celebrating as the airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers?

Broadly, I doubt it. There's little compelling evidence that these people were Mossad agents. They seem more like politically extreme cranks.

In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers whod flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before

You were dismissive of my, er, dismissal of this par earlier, but it really is a standard piece of journalistic implication. If you read something in a similar vein about, say, Chavez you would be outraged. These people work for a removal firm, and they are foreigners, so they have boxcutters and passports. They've got quite a lot of cash, but that's hardly rock solid evidence of implication in a global conspiracy. You can choose to read into it what you like but evidentially it doesn't support your assertion in any way.

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists

This is also largely implication. Notice the fuzziness of the wording: "some of", "many", "some of", "speculation". It's entirely possible that "some of" the men were on watch lists, something that happens a lot, and not with much accuracy apparently. We even shot a guy in this country thinking he was an arab terrorist and he turned out to be a Brazilian electrician.

And now they're apparently launching "an intelligence operation against radical Islamists"? I thought the implication of the article thus far was that they were helping them. The whole thing's a collection of incredibly vague assertions dressed up to make you conclude something that individually the evidence doesn't add up to. I'm not surprised this guy got pipped at the post by a Retard lifestyle reporter.

Furthermore the "prior knowledge" accusation is something of a moveable feast. Information was circulating in the intelligence community for some time before 9/11 that something was planned, but the fragmented nature of US intelligence units and the proliferation of previous red herrings made it hard to credit.

Imagine for example that every day I send you a pm via this forum that says that someone will poison your cat on Friday. Friday comes and goes. The next week I do the same. It happens again and again for some years. You dismiss me as a nutter (perhaps you've already done that. Chortle). And then one Thursday someone poisons your cat. I could quite truthfully write an article with the headline "hibs fan was warned of cat attack on internet forum". People might wonder why you didn't take measures to prevent the poisoning.

France also "knew" about 9/11, but this tends to get forgotten as they didn't support the Iraq war, aren't Israeli, and - I don't impute this reasoning to you necessarily - aren't an "influential global conspiracy of banking interests". Germany ditto.

There are problems with the official narrative of 9/11, but I think they are mainly symptomatic of the authorities' attempts to cover up their shocking ineptitude.

NB Why be so dismissive of Ayrshire ghosts. Without Ayrshire ghosts we'd lose one of the best-loved works of Scottish literature.

Was I dismissive? Simply stating the facts guv.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Except he isn't actually developing any new theories. He's presumably came up with these conclusions based on his own observations and perspective. Then he writes films or books about them.

That's a completely different thing from what is being spoken about. In fact it is pretty much the modus operandi of the vast vast majority of society who pick and choose which things to care about, what they use as a justification for their opinion, and what sources to believe. If you are looking for a balanced look at something why would you want to have anything to do with Michael Moore any more than you would go and watch Fox News? Difference being of course that Fox News has a tagline of "fair and balanced" and purports to be a news outlet...

Michael Moore is a polemicist. Pretty much everyone writing any op-ed pieces in every newspaper in the world is the same.

I must have missed the caveat at the start of his broadcasts that he is twisting the evidence and presenting it as fact!!

Al Gore might do the same!!

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I must have missed the caveat at the start of his broadcasts that he is twisting the evidence and presenting it as fact!!

Is that the same caveat that there is at the start of every single op-ed piece in the world? How about at the start of any historical programme? How about the 6 O'Clock News on BBC1? How much attention do these mediums pay to evidence or opinion which contradicts what they are saying?

So why exactly is Michael Moore held to a higher standard than the stuff you rely on for information?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is that the same caveat that there is at the start of every single op-ed piece in the world? How about at the start of any historical programme? How about the 6 O'Clock News on BBC1? How much attention do these mediums pay to evidence or opinion which contradicts what they are saying?

So why exactly is Michael Moore held to a higher standard than the stuff you rely on for information?

The BBC and Richard Starkey start with the conclusion and look for the evidence that fits, do they? Do me a favour!!!

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The BBC and Richard Starkey start with the conclusion and look for the evidence that fits, do they? Do me a favour!!!

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think people like Michael Moore just randomly come up with a conclusion about something without having got a rough idea of what they think? Do you think that someone like Simon Schama starts filming by looking for evidence which completely contradicts his books? People always come to conclusions and then write or do stuff based on what their conclusion is. No-one is a complete oracle who knows everything on every subject.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Its interesting EGB that you are quick to dismiss the idea that Mossad agents knew about in advance, filmed, and even celebrated the 9/11 attacks as they happened as nothing more than a conspiracy theory peddled by "Guardianista types".

From Sunday Herald (2nd Nov 2003):

Police Chief John Schmidig said: We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jerseys Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed.

In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers whod flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert. The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzbergs brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBIs Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section – the bureaus anti-espionage squad.

A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the firms Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened. I was in tears,” the man said. These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, Now America knows what we go through.’”

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”.



Will you choose to believe that the sources for the investigative report have been fabricated by the Sunday Herald reporter?

Personally, I felt this particular story raised more questions than answers and needed further investigation, plus much wider reporting, but that was the two things it didn't get. Which is a story in itself.

I used to have an active link for the story on Sunday Herald website but the link doesn't seem to work anymore. But you'll find the story reproduced in full here:

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

After googling sivan kurzberg, I gave up after the first 8 pages of links failed to return a hit from a mainstream media site. apart from the odd youtube link, everything was either far right, kkk, fundamentalist christian or mad conspiracy sounding sites.

which kind of illustrates the point i made in my last post to Al.

I seem to remember this thing being dismissed years ago - and the kids in question if anything, IIRC far from being mossad, were more likely to be the kind of dumb western dorks who celebrate 9/11 as some kind of blow against nike and macdonalds.

whatever - let's stop dancing about: let's get it straight; what are you saying here - are you or are you not suggesting that israel may be behind 9/11?

if you are, then you seem to hold views that i thought were restricted to neo nazis and jihadi propagandists. (and even they don't believe it for a minute but are just trying to whip up wall-eyed youths to go blow themselves up or kick a jewish kid to death.)

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Except he isn't actually developing any new theories. He's presumably came up with these conclusions based on his own observations and perspective. Then he writes films or books about them.

That's a completely different thing from what is being spoken about. In fact it is pretty much the modus operandi of the vast vast majority of society who pick and choose which things to care about, what they use as a justification for their opinion, and what sources to believe. If you are looking for a balanced look at something why would you want to have anything to do with Michael Moore any more than you would go and watch Fox News? Difference being of course that Fox News has a tagline of "fair and balanced" and purports to be a news outlet...

Michael Moore is a polemicist. Pretty much everyone writing any op-ed pieces in every newspaper in the world is the same.

whatever we call him, he basically makes a mint spreading disinformation, and is therefore part of the problem.

i'm not sure i agree all op-ed writers fit that bracket. even paid up wacks like polly toynbee or peter hitchens do not, as far as i see it, go out to consciously misdirect people like MM does. what is more, i think they genuinely believe the rubbish they spout, i don't think moore does.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

whatever we call him, he basically makes a mint spreading disinformation, and is therefore part of the problem.

i'm not sure i agree all op-ed writers fit that bracket. even paid up wacks like polly toynbee or peter hitchens do not, as far as i see it, go out to consciously misdirect people like MM does. what is more, i think they genuinely believe the rubbish they spout, i don't think moore does.

And here we have an example of exactly of why I don't just take peoples word for something. How does Michael Moore consciously mislead people? I'm pleased to see that you have backed down from your previously held position of just saying he lies without being able to back it up though...

And the stuff he comes out with is not disinformation. It's biased towards his viewpoint, but unless there has been a complete re-writing of what disinformation actually means that I missed, it's not disinformation.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think people like Michael Moore just randomly come up with a conclusion about something without having got a rough idea of what they think?

I think MM starts with a political objective and sets out to further that agenda rather than to illuminate his subject matter

Do you think that someone like Simon Schama starts filming by looking for evidence which completely contradicts his books?

well i suspect he looks at the evidence during the writing of the book dude.

People always come to conclusions and then write or do stuff based on what their conclusion is. No-one is a complete oracle who knows everything on every subject.

that's quite a bizarre statement. this is the opposite of the scientific method, and while propagandists everywhere disregard it, i'm far from convinced everyone does.

i suspect people like schama read a lot and think a lot about a subject - say the french revolution - and form a view of it. they then decide to write a book expressing that view, at which point they may well favour sources that help them develop the view they're presenting, but this is entirely different. the MM take on the french revolution would me more akin to writers who right up front are convinced it was a satanic masonic jewish conspiracy and then go snipping obsucre bits of stuff together to support this 'theory'. neither approach is unbiased, but both are nevertheless hugely different.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

After googling sivan kurzberg, I gave up after the first 8 pages of links failed to return a hit from a mainstream media site. apart from the odd youtube link, everything was either far right, kkk, fundamentalist christian or mad conspiracy sounding sites.

which kind of illustrates the point i made in my last post to Al.

I seem to remember this thing being dismissed years ago - and the kids in question if anything, IIRC far from being mossad, were more likely to be the kind of dumb western dorks who celebrate 9/11 as some kind of blow against nike and macdonalds.

whatever - let's stop dancing about: let's get it straight; what are you saying here - are you or are you not suggesting that israel may be behind 9/11?

if you are, then you seem to hold views that i thought were restricted to neo nazis and jihadi propagandists. (and even they don't believe it for a minute but are just trying to whip up wall-eyed youths to go blow themselves up or kick a jewish kid to death.)

Yes. Blaming Israel for anything is anti-semitism or driven by anti-semites
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Change the fucking record.

You'll note of course that he never said it was Israel, he said there were various reports which raise some suspicions and haven't really ever been clarified.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And here we have an example of exactly of why I don't just take peoples word for something. How does Michael Moore consciously mislead people? I'm pleased to see that you have backed down from your previously held position of just saying he lies without being able to back it up though...

that was one of the most disturbing threads i've ever taken part on on here. watching you trying to define 'lie' the way clinton defines 'sex' was quite soul destroying.

yes moore consciously sets out to mislead people, and yes, the sources presented during that thread provide evidence of it. i'm not going over it again. if you still deny it, it's pretty sad. i disagree with your views on a lot of things but most of the time i can appreciate where you're coming from. i really couldn't on that one.

And the stuff he comes out with is not disinformation. It's biased towards his viewpoint, but unless there has been a complete re-writing of what disinformation actually means that I missed, it's not disinformation.

disinformation to me is deliberately spreading a misrepresentation of events. come up with a torturous definition of your own if you will, to match your equally convoluted defintion of lying, but count me out.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. Blaming Israel for anything is anti-semitism or driven by anti-semites
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Change the fucking record.

You'll note of course that he never said it was Israel, he said there were various reports which raise some suspicions and haven't really ever been clarified.

1. same challenge to you as to him then; say what you feckin mean:

are you or are you not suggesting that it's reasonable to suggest that israel might be behind 9/11?


2. go google it yourself - the only sites i could find mentioning it are as described.

3. stick your snakey speak up yer bum. out of all the unexplained things that are the inevitable fallout of such an event, why highlight a years old report mentioning some jews, the only continued references to which on the internet seem to be by sites 'with an agenda'.

4. while the inferences seem pretty clear to me, i concede one can't be sure, which is why i've asked him, and now you, to say what you mean without ambiguity.

5. right now, you and GS are doing a great job of illustrating the point of the article, the writer of which i guess would take the following view of the incident with these lads - mmm, that's interesting. let's weigh it up with the body of overall evidence and see if it seems significant. pause for evaluation - no it's not, let's move on to the next question.

and that's what seems to have happened out there in cyberspace, bar nutter.com and nazi.net

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

that's quite a bizarre statement. this is the opposite of the scientific method, and while propagandists everywhere disregard it, i'm far from convinced everyone does.

You think there is a scientific method for deciding on your view of political issues
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You really aren't a big fan of people being able to hold different opinions are you? The irony is that you continuously link to op-ed pieces on here which other posters regularly think are utter pish.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i suspect people like schama read a lot and think a lot about a subject - say the french revolution - and form a view of it. they then decide to write a book expressing that view, at which point they may well favour sources that help them develop the view they're presenting, but this is entirely different. the MM take on the french revolution would me more akin to writers who right up front are convinced it was a satanic masonic jewish conspiracy and then go snipping obsucre bits of stuff together to support this 'theory'. neither approach is unbiased, but both are nevertheless hugely different.

So you think that Michael Moore, who lives in America, and has done all his life, has absolutely no experience upon which to base his opinon. And his opinion should be taken with a huge grain of salt as it is wildly biased. Unlike say one of your pet neo-cons... But Simon Schama writing about something a few hundred years ago should be trusted.

And meticilously researching something is not something which you think means someones opinion is valid either going by your opinion of someone like Chomsky. Or is it because he is hopelessly biased as well? In other words, are the only people who are not hopelessly biased the ones you agree with because that's the way it seems to come across...

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You think there is a scientific method for deciding on your view of political issues
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

what are you on about?

that said, while you may not do, i do try to evaluate things based on reason, which is perhaps why we hold different views.

You really aren't a big fan of people being able to hold different opinions are you? The irony is that you continuously link to op-ed pieces on here which other posters regularly think are utter pish.

there's no irony here Al, other than your continued demonstration of the point of the thread by an apparent inability to sort and classify commentary, which would allow you to distinguish between opinion and deliberate misrepresentation, amongst other categories

So you think that Michael Moore, who lives in America, and has done all his life, has absolutely no experience upon which to base his opinon. And his opinion should be taken with a huge grain of salt as it is wildly biased.

No Al - i'm saying that MM is deliberately misleading us, not presenting an honestly held, but wrong, opinion

Unlike say one of your pet neo-cons...

oh go on - name one. just for fun.

But Simon Schama writing about something a few hundred years ago should be trusted.

And meticilously researching something is not something which you think means someones opinion is valid either going by your opinion of someone like Chomsky. Or is it because he is hopelessly biased as well? In other words, are the only people who are not hopelessly biased the ones you agree with because that's the way it seems to come across...

Allan, I think i explained the point fairly clearly in the closing paragraph of my last post. if that doesn't make sense to you, then your powers of comprehension are failing you, or else you spend so much time sifting through the twilight world of propagandic cant, that like the chronic user of pornography, it really has distorted your view of the nominal subject.

you may disagree - against all reason i might add - that michael moore is not trying to mislead us. but even then surely you can appreciate the differentiation i - who believe he is - am making between people who do that versus simon schama and his biases? if not, as i say, illustration of the point of the thread.