TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Bill Maher confronted again – but is this the right approach? (35 posts)

1. DBLS
   Inactive

   Bill Maher confronted again – but is this the right approach?

   I sympathise with the guys who confronted Bill Maher here and can totally understand their frustration. But, should there be a debate about the way we should conduct ourselves when protesting venues like this?

   Is attacking people like Bill Maher the most constructive approach? Or does it actually prompt a counterproductive divisive and defensive response from anyone on the receiving end of it? Could a more coolheaded and civil way of protesting be infinitely more effective? I think there should be a debate on this, but kudos to these guys anyway for at least finding the guts to stand up and tolerate all the ridicule;

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08bE7L5yHrM

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. JonGold
   Member

   WTC7 seems like a strawman argument to me. The 9/11 Truthers in the audience set it up with "WTC7!!! WTC7!!!", and Bill Maher follows up by saying, "These are the people that think the towers were brought down in a Controlled Demolition by George Bush (not verbatim)", and the audience applauds.

   This type of thing is what prompted me to write this.

   http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...

   I am sick to death of it.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. JonGold
   Member

   You know when I liked to talk about WTC7? When we would promote that it wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Report. That one thing was enough to prove that the 9/11 Commission did not fulfill its' mandate. I love information that shows the 9/11 Commission didn't fulfill its' mandate. Because it PROVES BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT that we need a new investigation.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. truthmod
   Administrator

   Things are getting ugly. It always creeps me out how the audience (mob) loves to jump in and support the mainstream authorities.

   Here is the latest comment on youtube:

   anybody that thinks the world trade center was "an inside job" or anything other than muslim terrorism is a fucking ignorant idiot that, under my regime, would be dragged out into the street and show in the mouth. Then I would personally rape their wives and murder their children to ensure their incompetent seed does not live on

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmover
   Administrator

   Regarding "This is not the controlled demolition movement."

   TruthMove has had a strategic concern about overly emphasizing the lines of inquiry used most prominently by the MSM to marginalize the movement. Yet we certainly stand behind our representation and respect for this field of research, and those who promote it. I suppose this all boils down to a 'no smoking gun' argument. The case for complicity is a collective one, and we should not be putting too many of our eggs in one basket. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/525?replies=4

   That's the end of a post of mine from three months ago. "Controlled Demolition: One element of 9/11 truth" I explain that the NIST report, contrary to popular opinion, actually confirms our suspicion that the planes alone would not have been likely to bring down the buildings. Official mainstream confirmation of the relevance of CD theory.

   Was it a controlled demolition? I'd like to know. I have a reasonable suspicion that it was. Around this concern we find many unanswered questions, and a few answers that many don't want to face.

   But as we've thought here for a long time now, if we've got a lot to work with that's really solid, we would necessarily not be promoting those things that are being used to undermine our credibility. (Making the distinction here between promotion, education, and research, as always)

   CD research is an important part of this movement for reasons stated above and many others. We need WTC7.net, stj911.com, and ac911truth.org. But when we get the chance to have a wide audience we need to be in the habit of pointing to the bigger picture. What if they had coordinated to just yell a website name all at once during a quite moment? Say...WTC7.net? They would not have been kicked off, and the action would have been educational. We have better options.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. NicholasLevis
   Member

   Truthmod: Be it noted that the ugly comment you quote is indistinguishable from a flood of such equally ugly comments going back to the beginning. (I remember one saying that McKinney's opening of the 9/11 conference in Berlin in 2003 was a good opportunity for a mini-nuke.) I doubt the frequency has increased. Not to downplay it!

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. JonGold
   Member

   Nick... Good interview with Cosmos.

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. Victronix
   Member

   I don't think it's that meaningful to try to let events that easily be provocateur incidents decide what evidence we advocate, how or why.

   They are instigating a war with Maher and the most off the wall or unhinged will be the ones who respond to that. Next we will see someone saying B7 was nuked and space weapons did it. That can't decide what we do or why we do it.

   If B7 wasn't being yelled it would be "stand down" or "ISI money" or whatever else. The issue isn't the subject of what's being yelled. We can't control that.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. JonGold
   Member

   I would yell things like, "The families called for a new investigation, and you ignored it!!!"

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. JonGold
    Member

    Or, "70% of the families questions weren't answered, and you ignored it!!!"

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. JonGold
    Member

    "The Bush Administration controlled the entire investigation, and even fought against it!!!"

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. JonGold
    Member

    Maybe my "facts" are "lame" and unscientific, but I think they are powerful. I think, and hope they reach a different audience of people. Those people that aren't scientists, and are intimidated by the scientific analysis.

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. Victronix
    Member

    Ultimately, it's hard to know what the outcome of this will be. Initially, it looks pretty bad. But I'm not sure it made the other side look good at all either.

    They were clapping but Maher looked pretty intense with the level of intolerance he showed, and making the aggressive statements he did against them and putting the audience in its place.

    Also, it sends a message to other live talk show ad sellers that they may have bizarre audience situations if they go public trashing 9/11 truth messages, whether they're provocateur situations or not. I doubt those people want this type of situation. OTOH, we'll have to wait and see how it develops.

    I'm not sure the exact content of the message ends up being the issue here, the yelling out of it is.

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. JonGold
    Member

    True... but is that the point we've gotten to regarding the media?

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. Arabesque
    Member

    Is attacking people like Bill Maher the most constructive approach?

    No. It's the wrong approach. It's human nature to dismiss people who attack you.

    "Do we have some (expletive) security in this building," Maher yelled, "or do I have to come down there and kick his (expletive)?"

    If you want to get attention from others it might make a splash, but to others it's a turn-off.

    On the other hand it's front page msn.com

    http://www.msn.com/

    Today's Picks

    Bill Maher helps boot protester from HBO show

    Staph infections spreading

    5 scariest zombie games

    http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=280380&...

    Regular audience members found the ruckus thrilling. "We picked a very exciting night to be here," Eliot Stein, a 54-year-old high school teacher, said via cell phone.

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. NicholasLevis
    Member

    5 scariest zombie games! Yes!

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. jan
    Member

    Agree with Vic that it's not the message that matters as much as the hostile tone (and perception of rudeness by their repeated interuptions). Many professionals and women will have been alienated.

    Imo, the only success of this crass display was to further the stereotype of '911 truthers' as very rude, angry and anti-social people. Maher's reactions may also contribute to the use of intimidation tactics to keep 9-11 skeptics quiet. I can't help but wonder if these results were the display's actual purposes.

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. truthmod
    Administrator

    Bill Maher did come off looking out of control. His final statement about "not being gentle" and "ass kicking being called for" was pretty disheartening. Is that freedom of speech or what? He staked his whole persona on speaking unpopular things, yet he wants people to be beaten up when they disrupt his show with nothing more than their loud opinions.

    I didn't have any respect for the guy and now I have even less.

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. giveback
    

    Maher was very, very affected by it, no? But it didn't seem his response was as much about 9/11 Truth as it was about his "little" people speaking out of turn, especially because that sort of turn is considered out of line.

    The event would be a wash if it was on an even forum. The truthers and Maher both made fools of themselves and both brought no distinguishable information or considerations to the table. But it's not an even forum, so the bias of derision will most likely sort itself out accordingly.

    Posted 17 years ago #
20. Danse
    Member

    Completely disagree with the consensus here. Maher is an ass, a Zionist and all around prick. The truthers coaxed him out of his shell, proving him an elitist of the worst sort. I hope they continue these actions on a regular basis. Their only mistake was not sitting near enough the mic.

    Posted 17 years ago #
21. JonGold
    Member

    Danse... how hard would it be to paint members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as "Al-Qaeda" if people in the movement constantly refer to people as Zionists? Taking into account the propaganda being used against people like Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden, who have used that term countless times.

    Keeping in mind, that's exactly what's happening now.

    Posted 17 years ago #
22. Danse
    Member

    There's a huge difference between people who say "joo" this and "joo" that and a legitimate critique of Zionism. Zionism is another word for ethnocracy (to use the term of a famous Israeli dissident), which is another word for racism. I didn't support Apartheid and I'm not about to start now.

    "Osama" now bitches about Chomsky on a regular basis; it's clear that "Osama" is long dead, and his recent incarnation a mouthpiece for the neocons.

    There seems to be a concerted effort to conflate criticism of Israel with "Da jooz are evil" etc. So-called anti-Semites are popping up in the movement like weeds.

    But as Huxley so famously said, "The nature of the universe is such that ends can never justify the means. On the contrary, the means always determine the end."

    I will not defend nor downplay racism for whatever purpose; the Israelis were clearly partners in the crime of 911, and the "dancing" art students is one of the most alarming and compelling leads we have.

    Posted 17 years ago #
23. JonGold
    Member

    Nick... do you have the source for this?

    August, 2001: The CIA deports a Mossad operation out of south Florida in late August, 2001, when Israeli intelligence gets close to busting key 9/11 terrorists, including Mohamed Atta. Mossad publishes a list of potential terrorists, in order to embarrass CIA. Only then, 18 months after the Malaysian summit, does CIA put Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar on the terrorism watch list. (source: German press clips by my associate, Nicholas Levis.)

    Posted 17 years ago #
24. JonGold
    Member

    "the Israelis were clearly partners in the crime of 911"

    It isn't so clear to a lot of people. Some people think the "dancing Israelis" were monitoring the hijackers. Other reports say that they were sub-contracted by the CIA. Mossad agents celebrating a terrorist attack that will benefit their country doesn't mean they were involved in the 9/11 attacks. Israel doesn't control the United States military (which would have been necessary in order for 9/11 to succeed). Does that mean there aren't people in the Bush Administration loyal to Israel moreso than the United States? No. Does that mean the protection of Israel wasn't part of the reason for 9/11? No.

    I do think Israel needs to be looked at however regarding the 9/11 attacks.

    Posted 17 years ago #
25. JonGold
    Member

    Same with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Britain, Turkey, etc... but as I've always said, and in my honest opinion, the quickest path to 9/11 Truth is right through the White House.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.