Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Truthers and birthers are two sides of the same coin [View all]Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)42. Somewhat agree with your title.
Just saw a clip that fat blowhard bircher Jones (a 'truther') on Friday's Maddow, trying to resurrect a 'birther' scandal from '08. So I'm with you there. But the function of those creepy truthers was to infiltrate legit groups that posed legitimate questions about 9-11, and add crazy \ stupid issues to the discussion. Like blaming the Mossad for the attacks (though Israeli intel had pre-warned l'il bush), or claiming that footage of planes crashing into the WTCs was manipulated pixil images.
Those goofball ideas get conflated with real issues, then the real issues become easy to dismiss as crazy. Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Cyril Wecht did the same thing with the assassinations of Kennedy and King.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
100 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When I think of "truthers" I think of those trying to argue no plane hit the Pentagon or
Electric Monk
May 2012
#18
Your 'point' is a logical fallacy called "appealing to the consequences of a belief"
Electric Monk
May 2012
#20
You might want to check out David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor."
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#100
However, one could indeed use fish and banana's of examples of foods that are long and thin
LanternWaste
May 2012
#75
"Does that mean I think that a missile hit the towers or that it was MIHOP?"
jberryhill
May 2012
#70
I agree with your thinking generally on the broad issue of thinking patterns. nt
Bonobo
May 2012
#72
So... not taking Dick Cheney at his word is the same as imagining Obama wasn't born in the U.S.?
villager
May 2012
#6
No, as soon as being skeptical about a "side" is not equal, intellectual honesty ends.
boppers
May 2012
#84
Anything glib, witty, or that fits on bumper-sticker, is almost surely a crock.
boppers
May 2012
#89
Well put. The OP is exactly that, and you have acutely discerned its weakness.
villager
May 2012
#90
Yes --if you're referring to the overly-simplistic nature of the OP and its false equivalency
villager
May 2012
#92
Exactly! So in specific contrast to the OP, it's wise to be skeptical of "official explanations..."
villager
May 2012
#98
Well, he ignored all the credible evidence given to him that an attack was likely.
EOTE
May 2012
#60
You think there is some truth to the "9/11 was an inside job" theory?
UnrepentantLiberal
May 2012
#30
None of the "three" collapsed "precisely into their own footprint", any more than the BC is fake.
boppers
May 2012
#73
Did ya look into BushCo's heart? That is the argued difference between negligence and treason
TheKentuckian
May 2012
#54
looking through your replies, it's pretty evident that you don't know fuckall..
frylock
May 2012
#57
Obama's dad did not have an advance report titled "Mrs. Obama Determined to Give Birth in Kenya".
KamaAina
May 2012
#64
First of all, is "illegitimate" a real verb or are you just kree-a-tuv?
trolling4dollaz
May 2012
#80