TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Could We Be Set-up? (9/11 truth as a domestic security threat) (19 posts)

1. DBLS
   Inactive

   What is going on here, is this just slander or something worse;

   O'REILLY: "Now let me make a prediction here. Driven by crazy websites, the far left in this country is so out-of-control that somebody's going to get hurt. No American has a right to intrude on church services, television programs, or any other private gathering. If authorities don't wise up fast, bad things are going to happen. Wait and see."

   Glenn Beck: “This is the kind of group that ‘a Timothy McVeigh’ would come from.”

   Dave Nalle from "Blog critics": It's easy to laugh at the conspiracists, but it's a grim truth that someone protesting Bill Maher this week might be the next Timothy MacVeigh or Ted Kasinski a few frustrated and ignored years down the road."

   I really don't like this new "9/11 Truth = Terrorism" rhetoric suddenly being spewed by the shills. It started with this individual Dave Nalle from "Blog critics", and I thought that was just some absurd one off garbage. But now it seems to have found its way onto the autocues of Glenn Beck and O'Reilly, with O'Reilly even making "promises" about it. I find this slanderous against the Movement in the least (considering we're a Peace Movement!!) and at most potentially quite disturbing if this actually runs deeper within the criminal apparatus of the system.

   As a proposed solution/counter move to this new strategy to implicate us as "terrorists", I think this can't hurt regardless and is long overdue anyway;

   "We should really begin a campaign that will require 911 Truth sites and organizations wear a badge of allegiance to absolute non-violent activism." - Comment by Jpass on 911blogger.

   ^ I agree.

   Thoughts?

   Also as a side note it's worth mentioning these suspicious comments made on the We Are Change forum by an anonymous individual;

   "Words don't work. Force needs to be taken. But yes, force with intelligence, not brute force. A lot of planning needs to go into our revolution. I feel that it needs to start with an assassination, but we need to be able to put up a fight against retaliation, and for that we need a sizeable militia."

   "Knowing the police and the way things are run in the country, especially around Washington, peaceful intentions don't always make peaceful situations. If I were to be part of a peaceful march on Washington, I would come armed..."

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. NicholasLevis
   Member

   Note: Not just the shills but the no-planes crew and assorted personal attack videos.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. DBLS
   Inactive

   "Note: Not just the shills but the no-planes crew and assorted personal attack videos."

   ^ Yea your right Nick, I forgot about that garbage accusing people of being "Al-Qeada" for not believing flying holographic pigs hit the Towers.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. truthmover
   Administrator

   Nothing to do with paranoia

   This is something we have been discussing a lot privately within the movement. I have two thoughts about it. First that we should address it, and second that we should not be overly distracted from our work.

   This is being done by the mainstream and people like Nico to chill interest and participation in the movement. Everyone on their own should make a strong statement about non-violent action. We should encourage others to do so. In many reasonable people's eyes this is downright silly, and transparent propaganda. So we might think about not dignifying it with a response. And yet the assertion that we might become a domestic terror threat is just too damaging for us to ignore. We must counter the extension of this framing of our movement. And statements about non-violence all around would help a lot.

   Now to my second point. People aren't going to buy this. This is a PR battle easily won if we don't play into their hands. I heard Randi Rhodes hitting very close to the Press for Truth angle the other day. We've got articles popping up every other day in response to Bill Maher's meltdown that support our efforts. We have the entire left establishment saying nearly the same things we do about truth and accountability, without all those pesky 9/11 facts.

   Bill O'Reilly can't derail this train. But he can polarize his base further against us. And you know what his statements and actions with create?...An atmosphere in which violence against us in more likely. He and now Maher are the most violent commentators on television. Thankfully, the 9/11 truth movement doesn't have to shoulder this burden entirely. We've created a big enough audience that we at least get the first amendment nod from most reasonable people.

   People aren't going to buy the story that family member, first responders, architects & engineers, are a terrorist threat. It just won't play. We might view this latest attack as yet another representation of the impact that we are having. That they would up the ante is predictable. We have no need to alter our course as a result, but only re-affirm our principles in contrast to the propaganda.

   In this atmosphere of surveillance and national police authority we should soundly reject any assertion that our intentions are violent, and remind people that those making the assertions act violently.

   And then let's get back to work.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. JonGold
   Member

   It's very simple. 9/11 Truth is NON-VIOLENT. The MINUTE we become violent, "they" know EXACTLY how to deal with us. It's very possible the media is pushing us to BE violent, or at the very least, paint us as such. As are the shills, etc... The whole "anti-Zionist" thing, at least to me, is another way of painting us as such. Osama Bin Laden, and Ahmedinajad use the term often. If 9/11 Truthers are going around saying everyone is a Zionist, then suddenly, we start to sound like "Al-Qaeda" or the "Islamofascists."

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. DBLS
   Inactive

   Could this be a the solution? Personally I think it would be a GREAT concept for the Movement to embrace;

   The 9/11 Truth Movement Is Gandhi's Movement! "Satyagraha" 9/11 1906

   Gandhi launched his non-violent resistance movement on 9/11 1906. The 9/11 Truth Movement is by extension Gandhi's Movement;

   9/11 1906 vs 9/11 2001 A Revelation: Commemoration event of September 11, 1906, the Birth of Satyagraha in light of September 11, 2001 http://www.swarajpeeth.org/mediaroom/pressnote/05S...

   September 11, 2006 is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. But it is also the 100th anniversary of the beginning of Gandhi’s first non-violent campaign. Mahatma Gandhi launched his first campaign of non-violent direct action in South Africa on September 11, 1906. http://hinduism.about.com/od/organisations/a/gandh...

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. giveback
   

   9/11 Truth is not inherently non-violent, nor is it inherently violent. Truth, in it's absolute form is completely absent of violence. Violence originates at the moment of friction with truth. To witness truth, one must suffer. Suffering is witnessing truth. To deny or avoid suffering is violence.

   It's important to note that suffering is not "feeling bad".

   DBLS, I'm very appreciative that you brought up Gandhi. The situation that he was dealing with is not that different than what we are dealing with. The deal being ruthless and duplicitous imperialistic powers, and knowing they are symptoms of a much broader disease, a disease that we need to hold ourselves, as well as the imperialists, accountable for.

   Gandhi's words are very clear about truth and it's practical understanding. I would recommend the book "Soul Force: Gandhi's Writings of Peace" Edited by V. Geetha. It provides excellent context, as well as very distinct applications of his ideas in social movements.

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. chrisc
   Member

   giveback wrote:

   Gandhi's words are very clear about truth and it's practical understanding.

   You might well be right, I haven't read much of his work, however I really don't think the same can be said of your writing, I'm sorry but I can't make head or tail of this stuff:

   Truth, in it's absolute form is completely absent of violence... Suffering is witnessing truth. To deny or avoid suffering is violence.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. giveback
   

   Would you like to make heads or tails of this stuff, and would you like for me to help on that matter?

   I think you can make heads or tails, and I really hope I'm not getting in the way.

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. jan
    Member

    I've been thinking about this concern for a time also and decided to create a non-violence message graphic. There will be a couple of different variations within a few days, available here: http://digitalstyledesigns.com/

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. truthmod
    Administrator

    Thanks Jan, looking forward to seeing the new designs. Maybe we can start talking about a new poster campaign soon...

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. truthmover
    Administrator

    Don't miss this one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VqTPIuNHjk

    "Dangerous radicals are roaming the country unchallenged. The Factor will deal with them."

    Bill O'Reilly's latest BS about Rosie and the 9/11 truth movement. He trots out the Bill Clinton and Bill Maher clips. Then he has one of his crews interrupt her at a book signing. Her response is cool.

    But O'Reilly sums up once again by indicating that the "radical far-left" is a security threat that aids the terrorists.

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. jan
    Member

    Increased media focus on this message. Worrisome.

    I have created three "non-violence, not silence" mini banner shields. They can be viewed at the bottom of DSD. http://digitalstyledesigns.com/

    Have a great weekend! Jan H.

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. HocusLocus
    Member

    Everything in moderation though. When you are dealing with an 'attack' which supposes to create a meme from thin air, getting a counter-action to claim the inverse, "Is if..." (in the unconscious perceptions of the people who view it, "...such things are necessary.".

    Thus by prodding (and using, as a tool!) the good intentions of folk who practice above and beyond due dilligence -- it is possible to sow just enough of a hint that violence is an issue that, they launch a themed campaign. Then you've truly lost the meme creation battle for when an anti-meme has been minted, the corollary meme also exists.

    This would establish the 'violence is present' meme with even greater credibility than direct examples would, because it gives pundits of the target group fodder to say, "If it wasn't an issue... why did you take these initial steps?" For which it is difficult, even impossible to debate since it quickly descends to the 'I say' 'she say' level of personal claim and opinion.

    I say the best counter-offensive to appearances of provocateur 'implications of violence' such as provocative postings would be,

    1. A heightened state of awareness: catch individuals who drop these things and broadcast to the group. (truthmove.org is engaged in this, fine job)

    2. Counter-'attack' individuals who engage in this behavior with due dilligence, within the venue in which it occurs, with the requisite natural human response: shock, disgust and "speak-for-oneself" comment. And I'd say it's okay even to get personal but not too intrusive.

    3. Strive NOT to mint any 'anti-' campaign (my main point here) for an abhorrent issue because in this gainsaying environment opnce an anti-memes is established, for example, even in the hearts and minds of the 'inherently nonviolent', in a way the battle has been lost.

    4. Front nonviolence in general ONLY in when there are other issues to discuss such as etiquette or natural debate on personae who in our eyes have 'crossed the line', where it becomes a 'clarifying 'aside', as one might in everyday conversation.

    It is easy to manipulate any group using only the tools of their own ambition, if you can generate a concerted counter-response to some (manufactured) external event. In fact, now that I have penned this someone could come up with a reasonable countermeasure to this. Because like it or not human perception is always malleable in local venue to some degree. And it's a good thing, why we no longer have the emotional adaptability of slime-worms.

    Diffusion in anything is also good: a broad range of human response that is unscripted -- yet united in thrust if not tone. You have your babblers like me, direct action from-the-hip folk like Jenny Sparks, wry cynics like (no names)... whose common vision keeps them on message, yet individual response may vary -- even unpredictable in scope and measure.

    To wit: the 'backlash' to KW was not what was expected, and certainly not directly managed (by my read) but diverse and effective: as in rings true.

    Organize like a herd, but always and ever break ranks as individuals each with their own pet (and at times brilliant) tactics, and you have a herd that cannot be penned by one dog, or any number of dogs.

    If of a sudden sheep would begin to behave like stockdogs, with even more cleverness than the confident stockdogs which surround them, by applied intelligence shock and awe alone those sheep could have those dogs penned in no time.

    Will distort or destrory common household metaphors, for food.

    ---

    Just as it is vital to note when we are reacting dilligently and justly, we should also note when we react predictably. ~HL truthaction.org 10-Sep-2007

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. Menocchio
    Blocked

    There's really nothing new in the attempt to cast "conspiricists" as terrorists:

    "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." - G.W. Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly 11/10/2001

    There's some discussion on the White House website of how "conspiracy theories" spread on the Internet allegedly foment terrorism.

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. truthmover
    Administrator

    There's some discussion on the White House website of how "conspiracy theories" spread on the Internet allegedly foment terrorism.

    So I went to the White House site and did a search for "conspiracy theories." Here are a few tidbits.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&#...

    • Terrorists Exploit Misinformation And Conspiracy Theories.

    • We expect nations to speak the truth about terror. They shouldn't encourage malicious lies and outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th. No government should promote the propaganda of terrorists.

    • This agenda offers empowerment as an alternative to enslavement. It offers participation in place of exclusion. It offers the marketplace of ideas to counter the dark world of conspiracy theory.

    • The terrorism we confront today springs from: Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

    • The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe.

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. Victronix
    Member

    Terrorists Exploit Misinformation And Conspiracy Theories.

    This was part of Bush's Fifth Anniversary speech. It helped create the notion that no one should dare to waiver from the agenda on that date. No one went to jail and the media shut up and did their job.

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. truthmover
    Administrator

    It's is also specifically from a White House press release announcing the new National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/

    The corresponding point within the document itself is the fourth quote above. However, the third quote is most telling to me. Empowerment, participation, and a marketplace of ideas, vs. enslavement, exclusion, and the dark world of conspiracy theory. In light of the second quote from Bush implying that "conspiracy theories" are the propaganda of terrorists, the 9/11 truth movement is quite obviously being set up for deeper observation. This language provides law enforcement and intelligence agencies the latitude they need to be more actively investigating all manner of political organizations.

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Oh... shit!

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.