Alex_V wrote:I have to say that the way this thread has unfolded kind of makes Standing's point for him. To swallow a 9/11 conspiracy theory most seem to believe that the media are controlled, and history is some sort of NWO whitewash - naturally if you start applying that theory to events of the past, you get revisionism of other key events. The holocaust being a popular one.
I don't think many people suggest literal control of the media - and it is not just 9/11 truth activists who point to the propaganda model - Noam Chomsky and many others have written about how it works.
There is an excellent article on it by Mohsin of We Are Change London here: http://www.wearechange.org.uk/911%20and ... 0Model.pdf
All Edmund is doing is to insinuate guilt by asociation and innuendo "these people believe 9/11 was an inside job and are far-right wing racists and anti-Semites, what does that say about the view that 9/11 was an inside job?".
If it was
and inside job it says nothing of course - it would be evident to anyone who looked at the evidence with objectivity - regardless of their politcal view or prejudice. Even if it wasn't
and inside job then people of every political persuesion could get it wrong as well as right.
That should be self-evident to anyone with any critical faculties at all, the only reason "critics" have jumped on this as anything but a childish tirade by a bitter ex-truther (and one of the loonier ones I ever met as well) is that they think it attacks a group they were against in the first place... which is an ethically questionable position to take.
From the outside looking in, it does come across as hypocritical to blindly trust one set of theories on 9/11 but instantly dismiss any theories on certain other topics.
Well only if you wish to misrepresent us as accepting anything blindly or dismissing anything instantly. I do neither. I look at the facts and make my mind up based on those facts.
It does feel like it's more about politics than actual conviction - presumably many truthers know that once the holocaust enters the discussion any chance of mainstream support goes out of the window.
No. I simply don't believe the thrust of what Holocaust deniers are saying based on the evidence they present.
Now, are you suggesting that you
think they are right? You seem to be suggesting the only reason we are not saying that the holocaust was a hoax is for political convenience - are you that won over by the case they have made, that certain it is accurate, that you cannot believe anyone would have any reason to reject it but for self-interested purposes?
But my opinion is that many truthers privately acknowledge that the holocaust is as fair game as any other subject. After all, it seems like virtually every other event in history is open to some sort of radical re-evaluation. Am I really to believe that in my reading of 20th century history I am one of the 'sheeple' swallowing the nonsense my government has fed me over the years on all matters, EXCEPT for the holocaust where everyone was honest and above board in all things. I don't buy it.
Well what exactly is an opinion worth when it is not supported by any facts. Who do you think is interested in the fruits of your imagination?
Let me make a closing point -
Critics rubbed their hands with glee when Nick Kollerstrom was outed as a holocaust revisionist -
How many holocaust revisionists are there?
Think about it - if NK being a holocaust denier smears 9/11 truth - what does every other holocaust denier who doesn't question 9/11 do to smear you and your brethren?
If you're going to jump into lazy logical ditches, don't expect any help getting out...