Trust Issues: 9-11, News, Politicians, ....some thoughts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by windcatcher, Mar 23, 2010.

  1. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is amazing to me.........

    ----how most people will agree that politicians lie
    ----- and then vote for them because of a promise made by a politician
    ...... or believe a particular bill is stopped because one person has the power to block

    ..... how most people will agree that all media is controlled by those who own and finance it and the news is slanted by viewpoints and often biased
    ......yet accept without question everything reported as fact, even opinions and the avoidance of issues or censorship of news (for example...... much was made of the health care bill.... the good it promised and the mockery of opposition exaggerating death panels and rationed care, kill granny and babies..... but hardly any coverage that the opposition had a bill to reform health care without these issues and short enough to read and understand.)
    .....and mock all other sources as incredulous, when they may represent the only forum left for experts, whistleblowers, eye witness reports, and inconsistencies present in the MSM accounts.

    9-11
    ....how most people accept the account that 19 muslim hijackers (who were known by the FBI and other intelligence, but were not supposed to be here) took over 4 airplanes in an attack on America planned by OBL (a CIA financed operative, sick and on dialysis for terminal renal failure) and justified a war with Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing surveillance of our own people via DHS and the Patriot Act, (profiling as potential group terrorist those who oppose abortions, those who are fundamentalist Christians, those who study prophecy, those who study the constitution or are interested in knowing and exercising their citizenship rights, those who support 2nd ammendment rights of gun ownership, independent and 3rd party supporters, anti-war groups), the move to make our driver's license a national identification card tied to all personal financial and medical information and necessary for movement within our borders and across borders.
    .... but don't question why our borders aren't sealed to prevent crossing without legal documents, what happened to the WMD, how fire brought down asbestos covered reinforced steel towers and bldg 7 collapse on cue, why the delay to establish a commission to study 9-11 and the censoring of reports and with holding of witnesses and their accounts, and our jump from humane internment of suspects to trying to justify the use of torture for interrogation, why OBL was never wanted by the FBI, why Saudi's were secretly flown out of the US while other planes were grounded. Were there changes in the ownership, problems in the design of the towers, problems related to leasing, recent changes in security, and the warehousing of information involving major investigations........which made the destruction of the towers an asset by distraction and destruction?

    Those who asks the questions: What do they lose if wrong? Their dignity and their credibility.... which may be all they have. But what do they gain if they were ever proven right to question? Nothing. Even if the truth were known it is hardly likely that any one person would have access to all of it to profit from it.

    Trust? What is it really?
    We give it to a stranger and deny it to a friend.
     
  2. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Paul for posting this link.:smilewinkgrin:
    ---------
    It doesn't judge people for asking questions...
    Nor does it speak to all the issues which some experts have asked.

    -----------------
    What it does do is present its information, and draw conclusions based upon the confidence in the people who were consulted.

    Whether it is the final word, or whether there is more which needs answering, or experts who disagree with these findings..... is an individual matter to decide.
    (One thing I try to do is 'source' out the information, the qualifications of the experts, and the ownership of the publication..... and ask myself.... what stake does this source have in the outcome.... if any. Even, say, a source is conservative in agreement with my conservatism, are they presenting information in a critically balanced way or in a way of bias to halt my skepticism or stop an honest critique for the truth?)
     

Share This Page

Loading...