oldschool CxC

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

On Nick Berg

Fake arguments
42] Berg is wearing an orange uniform identical to those used by the US for detainees.

43] The walls and baseboards are identical to the Abu Ghraib prison. The room size is institutional in size.

44] Berg is shown in a chair identical to those in the prison. These chairs are not extremely rare, but the odds of both chairs being identical is slim.

45] At 13:45:58 an individual with white skin, a military outfit, and a military hat identical to one worn by a guard at Abu Ghraib passes quickly through the lower right of the frame. This person's side re-enters several times. At 13:46:26 their left ear and hat is clearly visible in the lower right of the frame for a second. They have a pen in their left pocket where it would be impossible to reach with their right hand. Left handed individuals are taboo in Islamic cultures, you can not be a left-handed Muslim Arab, you can not write with your left hand. For more a complete analysis of this scene click here.

so he coincidentally loaned his laptop to Zacharias Moussaoui in Oklahoma, his family thinks he was in US custody for 13 days, and alleges they have an e-mail about it, and the cia thinks it was Zarqawi that beheaded him (as reported by Fox)?
who be trippin'?

I think it is an interesting allegory to 9/11 conspiracy theories. shouldn't questioning and debate reveal the truth? and yes a good argument against the conspiracy is the ineptness/secrecy bit but what about factual debate?

dr.? blood spurts?

bleh what does it matter..
oh yeah how are we doing on that Anthrax mailing investigation?


Blogger REkz said...

A, re: your link to Blood Spurts & falsified beheading claims -- WOW, that's a strong argument. How come no one's calling you a screwball, like I get after my posts? Are you getting special priviledges? HA HA

Interesting stuff.

What I'm really interested in is that I think Sony and Erik are bright guys, but whenever I mention any kind of allegation that perhaps what we're seeing isn't true, they freak out and attack me personally.

I guess I figured people with college educations (esp lawyers) would think to question their sources.

If Fox says it's true, I'm naturally prone to question it. Fox Channel argues constantly that USA is in Iraq to bring democracy. Thus, I'm further encouraged to think we are there for other reasons, like OIL and MILITARY OCCUPATION. (crusades come to mind)

I guess that's where I'm stumped. I mean, none of us gets paid extra $$$ if to ingest and restate all the pro-USA propoganda, right? So why not question the sources to validate the data?

When an Engineer says the core of the WTC couldn't have gotten hot enough to melt steel just from airplane fuel, I have to consider that might be valid. When multiple professionals (including demolitions experts) say that, I have to allow the possibility that it's valid.

When Bush accuses Bin Laden of attacking the USA, and then deports all the Bin Laden's quietly to France the day after the attack, I am forced to question his statements on some level.

One thing from my US History degree: one of my favorite teachers did a presentation on Bias, and said your goal as a history student was to know the writers bias and use that as a measure for judging the history they offer.

This has proven a CRITICAL skill in the USA of 2007 (pun intended - HA).

12:22 PM  
Blogger Erik said...

In past posts I have refuted your arguments logically, which you now characterize as "freaking out" and attacking you. Pot, kettle? Comb through your posts to see how many times you claim we get our info from "Fox news" or that we don't "question our sources" because, you know, we're just regurgiating what the MAN wants us to believe. Much easier for you than rational argument I guess, but boring for me.

Once you refused my olive branch of agreeing not to question my/our motives, all bets are off. I call bullshit.

I'm not all that interested in debating you any further, because you have gone off the deep-end and clearly aren't interested in debate, only in restating more fervently your scattershot screwball opinions.

So: mockery it is!

4:04 PM  
Blogger Sony said...

A- I think you can debate all the facts you want, that's why you can link to that, why you can have people on TV saying it and videos circulating. (I mean you can in the U.S., not Iran, Palestine, etc.). Some of thsoe 9/11 conspirators were on an NPR program debating the Flight 93 with Popular Mechanic writers.

But most media outlets have looked at it and found the "evidence" crappy and they've moved on. Even harsh, relentless critics of teh administration, like Richard Clarke, don't think that Bush needed to blow up the WTC just so he could launch a war-- he was going to do that anyway.

At the end of the day, every discussion and every debate has boundries because you have to debate to leave time for debate, for back and fourth and for conclusions. You can't let every voice have a seat, because you'd never get anything done.

The 2006 midterms are evidence enough that no serious thinker believes we live in a monarchy. And those newly empowered democrats would love to nail Bush however they can, but even with all that motivation, and with all that power to be gained, they recognize the conspiracy talk is absurd.

4:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home