The exploitation of nationalism

[noise]

"We" must win in Afghanistan. "We" must stay the course in Iraq.

Yet when it comes to 9/11 (and honest discussion of Middle East policy) there is no "we."

More like:

"You should shut your mouth and go along."

"You should trust your government."

"You are a conspiracy nut."

"You lack patriotism."

"You should accept that we know better than you. We will tell you something if we feel like it. When we don't feel like it, too bad for you."

"You are insulting the victims."

"You are dishonoring soldiers serving in harms way."

"You are out of line for questioning dedicated CIA officials."

Great leaders. Truly inspiring. No reason to distrust them at all.

Note: None of these are direct quotes. Just my attempt to get across the double standard when it comes to 9/11. The trust is all one way. Instead of transparency we get efforts at intimidation.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. You are projecting. n/t

[noise]

3. Am I out of line

for wondering why powerful officials are held to an extremely low standard of conduct? Is it wrong to think government officials should be accountable to the public in a representative democracy? Should I embrace the secretive unitary executive model of government?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. You are demonizing people who disagree with you in a discussion. n/t

[noise]

6. All I'm doing is pointing out double standards

I went off script eh? It's supposed to be the wacky truthers vs. the patriotic debunkers.

When do "we" (the American public) get to have an informed debate about national security issues?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. You cannot provide links because it is your characterization only.

You are importing those messages into what people say to you to keep yourself from ever recognizing answers and solutions.

You are doing this to yourself.

[noise]

15. The reaction to the fact

that Van Jones signed a 9/11 petition? Was that reaction at odds with my characterization?

The use of fearmongering to justify continuing occupations and police state counterterrorism powers?

Secrecy prevents the public from getting answers.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. You are smearing every dissent to your opinion with that reaction from some. n/t

[Neily]

2. You forgot...

"You are helping the terrorists"

That one always gets me. To me, that is a clear example of intimidation.

I always thought finding out the truth helps us prevent it from happening again... As they say, history repeats itself. And, I say, it repeats itself because history is always written by the "winners" who never divulge the truth which always allows it to happen again.

[noise]

4. Two key Bush era propaganda themes

Authoritarianism=patriotism.

Dissent=terrorism.

[LARED]

7. Bush who? - nt

[noise]

8. An administration change

does not erase the past.

The exploitation of 9/11 continues. As does the secrecy.

[LARED]

10. True, that's the past. So what

does that have to do with the present?

The bogymen man Bush is gone, so why and who is exploiting 9/11?

Who's advocating the idea that Authoritarianism = patriotism, or Dissent = terrorism?

[noise]

11. Two examples

Patriot Act renewal. Staying (or even escalating) the course in Afghanistan.

Question either and you have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11."

The debate over PA renewal and Afghanistan policy is limited because there is so much secrecy concerning national security issues. One of the best examples of the secrecy is 9/11.

[LARED]

13. So these have become key Obama propaganda themes?

Authoritarianism=patriotism.

Dissent=terrorism.

[noise]

17. I don't think so n/t

[LARED]

19. So who's advocating

the idea that Authoritarianism = patriotism, or Dissent = terrorism?


Besides you.

[noise]

21. So Van Jones

wasn't considered out of line for questioning the Bush administration? He wasn't basically accused of being an al Qaeda sympathizer?

So to answer your question the media currently enforces these concepts.

[LARED]

23. So according to CT logic

Bush had significant control of the media in order to create propaganda regarding these themes;

Authoritarianism = patriotism, and Dissent = terrorism.

But since Bush and his administration are gone these themes continue to be enforced by the media even though they have been set free from the Bush administration's machinations.

So who's controlling the media now that Obama is President.

[noise]

25. CT logic?

Everything changed when Obama was inaugurated? All the corruption magically went away? There was no cumulative effect from the years of Bush administration/media fearmongering and propaganda?

Is skepticism of the 9/11 Commission report welcomed in US society? I think the answer to that question is found in the media coverage of Van Jones' signing of a 9/11 petition.

[LARED]

26. What does 9/11 skeptism and the fact that

only a handful of people buy into truther silliness have to do with "The exploitation of nationalism" or "Authoritarianism = patriotism / Dissent=terrorism."

If you are trying to claim that you believe media driven propaganda is marginalizing the truth movement, you need to build a much bigger, better, and rational case.

[noise]

27. The OP isn't about the truth movement

It's about the use of propaganda to keep the lid on government corruption. One glaring example is the 9/11 coverup.

[Flatulo]

16. That reminds me...

My son found this great Tee shirt that says:

'If you don't sleep with me the terrorists win'

Priceless.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Isn't your son only 11?

What kind of father are you?

[Flatulo]

20. Durn internet.

[Twist_U_Up]

24. well he is a octer

just sayin

[rhymeandreason]

9. It is the ceaseless dissembling, doublespeak, evasion and obfuscation that drives me

to distraction. It's not quite an ad hominem because it is directed at "truthers" generally; they aren't actually defending and promulgating the Bush lies but their arguments just happen to coincide with the Bush lies. That and the hostile swarming and thread-jacking on significant issues. Did I mention how they game the board rules in order to suppress discussion? Whenever one of the 911 stories is allowed to slip into a general discussion forum, the overwhelming majority of responses supports a new investigation but as soon as it is dumped in the "dungeon" it is worked over by the same half dozen individuals who have apparently made "debunking" a life-time avocation. Just when was the last time that one of these clowns was tombstoned? Some of them have been routinely flaunting the rules for years. It really stinks.

(Okay, you can click the alert button now, "dudes", I'm sure this post will be removed before I check back in at lunch. Have fun in your Orwellian dystopia.)

[HannibalCards]

12. It's not the 'truthers' beliefs

It's the fact that they refuse to acknowledge the evidence put before them.