Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story
from the shaq-fool dept
I’ve always suspected that most famous people have outside groups managing their social media engagements for them. That is why I almost never follow celebrities on social media sites. What’s the point? At the same time, with the importance of self-branding in the media today, I understand why these outside groups are used. What I don’t understand, however, is why a famous person might entrust his or her social media brand to a group that might just end up making a client look foolish.
Take, for example, Shaquille O’Neal. The former NBA star and current NBA commentator has quite a presence on the web, which is what made it so strange when his personal website and Facebook page suddenly began announcing that Shaq was one of those 9/11 truther types.
There was more like that. On the one hand, everyone, including Shaq, is allowed to think that 9/11 was the work of government conspiracy pulled off by the evil overlords that have been running this country for their own personal benefits. On the other hand, 9/11 truthers are sadly hilarious as a general rule, but picturing the low-voiced, enormous Shaq wagging his finger about holographic 747s and shouting about the melting temperature of steel would be the kind of funny I’d pay real money to see.
Turns out that hilarious scenario will never be, however, as Shaq released a statement saying some yahoos at his social media management company were the ones responsible. Digital Mavericks, the outside firm that Shaq has since fired, also released a statement.
Statement from Shaquille O’Neal: This post was insulting and offensive, and I apologize to everyone who came across it. Once I learned that it was on my Facebook page and blog, I ordered it removed and fired the firm that posted it. I am not and never have been a “9/11 truther.’’ My father served our country and I am immensely proud of the sacrifices people make daily to keep us safe. The events of 9/11 were a horrible tragedy for our nation and it’s a disgrace that anyone would think otherwise.
Statement from Matt Argall, CEO of Digital Mavericks: Our firm helped manage content for Shaquille O’Neal’s Facebook page and blog. Yesterday, one of our employees posted a link on Mr. O’Neal’s social media that related to the tragic events of 9/11. Mr. O’Neal had no knowledge of the posting. Further, it does not represent the views of Mr. O’Neal, our clients or our organization. We sincerely apologize. We have removed the link from Mr. O’Neal’s social media and no longer manage social media content for him. We are very sensitive to the tragedy of 9/11 and apologize greatly for this post.
In the meantime, nobody reading anything on Shaq’s site or social media sites will have any reason to believe that the posts are actually coming from him. Which is what makes celebrities on social media so lame. The truth is that it would have been far more fun if Shaq was a 9/11 truther. Fun and sad, yes, but still fun. Oh well, hopefully the next company he contracts with has some nonsense to say about vaccines or something.
Filed Under: 9/11, shaquille o'neal, social media, truthers
Companies: digital mavericks
Comments on “Be Careful Not To Hire Conspiracy Theory Nuts To Run Your Social Media: The Shaquille O'Neal Story”
Its funny how timmah slams “conspiracy theorists” on a conspiracy theory website.
Re: Re:
What conspiracy theories have been posted here outside of comments?
Re: Re: Re:
Look at techdirt history. Just today:
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times ‘Snowden’ Propaganda Admits That He’s Just Writing What UK Gov’t Told Him
Ohhh the big bad gubbmit controls the media. CT’s know that’s true, and has been for years, but if you would have said that a year or two ago timmah would go all tinfoil hat on your ass. No?
House Votes To Change Law Due To Trade Agreement, While Insisting That Trade Agreements Don’t Change Laws
The conspiracy theory: critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation. ( Silly tin foil hatters. )
Truth: It did. Less than one month on, and we have exactly what he claimed ‘is not true’ happening. A trade agreement forcing a law change, and having what some would claim is an impact on food safety. Up until then it was just speculation… a theory of a law that conspires to change current law.
–
search for TD articles before the snowden leaks with the keyword FBI. It was all “conspiracy” speculation… until it wasn’t.
–
I see… as long as its 911CT’s it’s ok… but when I point out that TD is a little on the conspiracy theory side PPL dont like it.
–
Every Kill A ‘Good’ Kill: How Police And The Media Cooperate To Disparage The Dead
Uh oh… there is that big bad gubbment running the media again. If I tell you the government controls the media, especially a few years ago… Blammo… Tinfoil hat wearing “crazy” “Conspiracy theorist.” No? But CTers already knew that.
–
Encrypted Messaging Service Stops Answering ‘Warrant Canary’ Questions, Suggesting FBI, Others Are Seeking User Info
Uh oh… must be that big bad gubbmint again. Not that maybe they were tired of answering pesky emails over and over again. No?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that anyone discussing government malfeasance is a conspiracy theorist?
Follow up question: Are you James Clapper?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or an idiot?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Definitely an idiot. That comment is incoherent, incomprehensible and insane.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Or you are just really stupid. Ill go with stupid.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No. Not at all. I am saying that anyone discussing government malfeasance is labeled a conspiracy theorist to those not informed on such matters. No?
Follow up question: Are you an asshole??
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Look at techdirt history. Just today:
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times ‘Snowden’ Propaganda Admits That He’s Just Writing What UK Gov’t Told Him”
OK, I’m looking. The article factually and accurately reports what’s happened, based on an interview that’s there for all to see. Unless you have evidence that what’s stated is incorrect, then it’s factual reporting. How is that a conspiracy theory?
“Ohhh the big bad gubbmit controls the media.”
Oh, right, yeah if you extrapolate something that’s not stated in the article to ridiculous degrees and pretend that’s now truth, everything does look like a conspiracy theory!
Why are you people always so allergic to facts that you have to invent a fantasy version of this site to argue with?
There’s only one set of conspiracy theorists round here, and it’s the anonymous idiots who claim that Google are behind everything, or that all the writers and users are pirates or other such easily debunked nonsense. The actual articles always seem to suspiciously go by without any substantial rebuttal or counterpoint.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sure...
Sure… he’s *not* a 9/11 truther… that’s *just* what *they* want you to think.
So, what your saying is ‘Shaq didn’t attack’?
And The Evidence Shows....
On the other hand, 9/11 truthers are sadly hilarious as a general rule,
There are over 2000 degreed and licensed architects and engineers who disagree with your sadly hilarious statement.
Please click the link directly below this paragraph to peruse the petition with the names of 2000 architects and engineers who have put their professional reputations on the line to come forth and call the governments 11Sept2001 story what it is: science fiction.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf
Evidence that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were collapsed on 11Sept2001 via controlled demolition:
Rapid onset of destruction, constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel, lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph, mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds, isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,” total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile, several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles, evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams, nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
Documentaries and Videos — The Evidence: Implausibility of the Official Story Surrounding Building 7’s Collapse
The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008, more than six years after starting its investigation. Because almost all of the physical evidence had been destroyed, NIST’s theory depended largely on its ability to reproduce the collapse through modeling. Despite being able to adjust inputs in order to achieve the desired result, NIST’s model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse, as shown in the picture below:1
Twin Towers
The official account of the Twin Towers’ destruction was produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and released in September of 2005. Unfortunately, NIST’s report only provided a hypothesis of the events leading up to the initiation of the collapses, or the “collapse initiation sequence.” NIST did not attempt to explain how once the collapses initiated, the upper sections of these 110-story skyscrapers would continue falling downward through the path of greatest resistance. Instead, NIST simply asserted that once each building was destabilized, “global collapse ensued.” However, we can examine the general features of NIST’s collapse initiation sequence for both Twin Towers to see if it is consistent with known facts, or is at least self-consistent.
Please take the time to watch the supporting videos found after you click the link directly below this sentence.
http://www.ae911truth.org/38-home-posts/78-education.html
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Mentíon it and the truthers come out of the bushes, selective-view microscopes clutched tight to their chests.
Amazing.
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Did you even take the 10 seconds to click either of the 2 links I provided before you exposed your ignorance for all to see?
Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Oh, I saw the usual rejection of authority and reliance on gut feeling combined with anecdotal “evidence”
Where are emails from WTC victims where they complained about having all the walla of their office ripped out and studded with thermite and explosives?
Where is even a single semi-credible contractor, soldier, mercenary or day-laborer who worked on this massive cover-up?
When the truthers can’t give any message other than No and “failing to agree with my disparate collection of anecdotes proves everyone else are sheeple, man!” you know they have nothing useful to say. Are you going to warn us about Jade Helm takeovers of the south and Muslim commie terrorists being shipped around in FEMA trailers next?
Re: Re: Re:2 And The Evidence Shows....
Architects and engineers can only look at the available evidence and attempt to discern how the three buildings came down on 11Sept2001. They do not have ESP and thus can not answer as to the who or the whys.
But, we do have history as our guide and looking back to the 1930’s in Germany when the Reichstag building was lit afire and the National Socialists (Nazi) blamed the German communist party and then the Nazis used the allegation to garner emergency powers and suspend civil liberties which has been seen as pivotal in the rise of the Nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Some people may say that the US government used the attacks of 11Sept2001 in similar fashion as National Socialists of 1930’s Germany to garner emergency government power and suspend civil liberties.
Re: Re: Re:3 And The Evidence Shows....
Stop reading Jim Marrs and taking him seriously. He’s an asshole.
Re: Re: Re:4 And The Evidence Shows....
Geigner has to astroturf his own story, probably the ACs too.
Re: Re: Re:5 And The Evidence Shows....
Right, because we believe conspiracy nuts more than him. uh-huh.
Re: Re: Re:3 And The Evidence Shows....
So the response is “some people can’t figure out any actual alternative so wink-wink nudge-nudge Nazis”
Classy.
Re: Re: Re:4 And The Evidence Shows....
Paging Mr. Godwin, Mike Godwin to the Techdirt comments section, please, Shaquille O’Neal story.
Re: Re: Re:2 And The Evidence Shows....
I could believe that the whole thing was a cynical false flag if they’d exploited it more effectively, but not using the method the truthers insist on. It would be far easier to get some bearded brown chap to pretend to be an agent of Al Quaida and guide the conspirators into making an attack, perhaps passing on a few helpful tips (like, say, “these airports failed our security audits”) to improve the odds of success.
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Re: Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
No, the amazing thing is that so many believe The Official Story when have seen nothing but some video
How about how once a week or so a post on techdirt shows up telling us about chicanery by Government officials and somehow on the 1 issue of what’s been presented as what happened on 9/11 as an official story – THIS TIME the Government has it right and there is no lies or deception.
Re: Irrelevant
Here’s the thing though:
It doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter if it was highjackers slamming planes into the buildings that took them out, precise demolitions that did it, the buildings spontaneously turning into swiss cheese and collapsing as a result, all of the above or none of the above. None of it matters ultimately.
‘Truthers’ like to claim that the buildings were taken out via controlled demolitions, well guess what, buildings are destroyed in that fashion all the time and no-one bats an eye, so clearly that aspect to the story doesn’t mean squat. No, what matters in the end was the response to the destruction of the buildings, no matter how they were destroyed, and that is where you should be focusing your attention.
Two buildings were destroyed, a couple of thousand people died. Unfortunate and tragic respectively, but buildings being destroyed and people dying are both things that happen on a regular basis, so ultimately neither of those are terribly important. Opportunistic and greedy politicians and apathetic and/or cowardly citizens leading to the undermining of rights, that is the important part.
Stop freaking out over one tree, and start paying attention to the forest.
Re: Re: Irrelevant
Wrong:
3 buildings collapsed on 11Sept2001 not the 2 you claim:
Two buildings were destroyed,
Please click the link, watch the videos and help eliminate the scourge of ignorance:
http://www.ae911truth.org/38-home-posts/78-education.html
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
Because you apparently missed the main point of my comment:
It. Doesn’t. Matter.
I don’t care if it was two, three, or half a dozen, because it’s irrelevant. The buildings aren’t the important part, the response to their destruction is, and that holds true no matter how they were destroyed or who was responsible.
Re: Re: Re:2 Irrelevant
The better framing would have been 2 were destroyed after planes impacting them and a 3rd steel framed building after a fire.
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
The collapse of the third building argues against the conspiracy, not for it. In run up to the invasion of Afghanistan, in the run up to the Iraq war, and in the rush to pass the Patriot Act, no one ever brought up the collapse of the third building as a reason these things needed to happen. If you’re going to assert that the government demolished the third building, you’re going to have to provide a motive. What did they have to gain by destroying it? Its complete absence from any government propaganda shows a distinct lack of motive.
The conspiracy theorist reasoning seems to operate like this: it’s weird that a building not struck by one of the planes collapsed therefore it must be a conspiracy. Welcome to the life. Weird shit happens all the time.
Re: Re: Re:2 Irrelevant
The claim is that there were documents in that building (uncomfortable active investigations) that needed to be destroyed.
That’s your motive.
You need to look at who the occupants of the building were. I thought this was common knowledge to be honest.
Re: Re: Re:3 Irrelevant
The claim is that there were documents in that building (uncomfortable active investigations) that needed to be destroyed.
And they decided that was the best way to go about it? Was it just a huge coincidence that they were demolishing these other nearby buildings too, or was the whole “operation” just to shred some files?
Re: Re: Irrelevant
“Opportunistic and greedy politicians and apathetic and/or cowardly citizens leading to the undermining of rights, that is the important part.”
Very well said, I would just like to ad that the right to not be blown up should extend beyond any political borders.
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
“I’m not sadly hilarious!” says the sadly hilarious joke.
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
“There are over 2000 degreed and licensed architects and engineers who disagree with your sadly hilarious statement.”
No, even if their claims are based on fact, truthers do tend to be unintentionally hilarious in how they try and get their points across. Also, argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.
Re: Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Because the argument contains the opinions of experts it’s non-fallacious argumentum ad populum. So argumentum ad populum , but not a default fallacy. It may still be factually wrong though.
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
Jet fuel may not be able to melt steel beams but what about all those chemicals they use when they spray Chem trails, surely that stuff has to burn hot enough.
Re: And The Evidence Shows....
OK, so what if there was thermite on the beams that aided the destruction of the twin towers (not personally agreeeing there was, but if there was evidence you speak of) How do we know who could have put it there? Is it automatically the US government at fault? How do we know it wasn’t a grand plan pulled off by Bin Laden, smash a plane into a tower for theatrics, and detonate some incendiary that could have been placed there years/months before to guarantee their sadistic results.
My point is, it’s really impossible to tell what happened, because all the evidence has been destroyed. Let’s lay it to rest and make sensible decisions in the future. (ANd Shaq has nothing to do with all this mess. who in their right mind would post crap like that when they are paid to represent a client’s professional image.)
One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Two, that MPAA / RIAA are scheming to take your liberties. Actually they’re defending properties that they paid for and made against hordes of stupid thieves.
Three, implicit in Geigner’s “story” here, that 19 Muslims defeated all of North Americian Air Defense to fly planes into towers.
Four, that Iraq had WMD and was on verge of nukes so had to be invaded in order to save it from the horrors of dictatorship.
Five, that this “article” isn’t cynically but feebly contrived to let fanboys get in some ad hom in futile effort to counter Techdirt’s slide in rankings.
Six, that Masnicks supports copyright even while defending Kim Dotcom, gotta be the nuttiest idea ever, total contradiction.
Seven, I’m sure soon to be demonstrated: that Techdirt doesn’t censor!
Top of my head. Almost everything Techdirt runs is The Official Story based only on the myth that government ever tells the truth.
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
See? Hilariously sad, just like I said!
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Hey troll, have a cookie.
And, um, er, this is highly recommended. http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/compound-w-freeze-off-wart-removal-system/ID=prod3984741-product . I suggest daily treatments.
Re: Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
What he really needs from Walgreens isn’t available over-the-counter.
Re: Re:
And yet, here you are, being a complete jackass.
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Top of my head.
Which apparently is full of shit. Impressive.
Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
Oh dear…
“One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it’s laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.”
So… you do this shit for free? That’s actually worse. You can still be a shill and not get paid, but if you did at least you’d have a semi-understandable reason for obsessively lying.
“Two, that MPAA / RIAA are scheming to take your liberties. Actually they’re defending properties that they paid for and made against hordes of stupid thieves.”
…by taking liberties away from people who are not involved in any such activity. The things you mention are not mutually exclusive.
“Three, implicit in Geigner’s “story” here, that 19 Muslims defeated all of North Americian Air Defense to fly planes into towers.”
Yes, because nobody actually expected the airliners that were authorised in the surrounding airspace to fly into buildings until it was too late to stop them. Every other airline hijacking attempt in history was made with the intention of keeping hostages alive, so everyone was caught completely by surprise when it turns out to be a kamikaze mission. How is that more ridiculous than your theory?
“Four, that Iraq had WMD and was on verge of nukes so had to be invaded in order to save it from the horrors of dictatorship.”
Those were the lies used by the Bush administration to invade a country totally unrelated to 9/11, yes. Has an article been written here to suggest otherwise?
“Five, that this “article” isn’t cynically but feebly contrived to let fanboys get in some ad hom in futile effort to counter Techdirt’s slide in rankings.”
Which “ad homs”? Your entire comment or something else?
“Six, that Masnicks supports copyright even while defending Kim Dotcom, gotta be the nuttiest idea ever, total contradiction.”
How does demanding due process contradict support for copyright? Defending copyright does not mean dropping to your knees and obeying every whim of Lord MPAA. Why are you so opposed to a fair trial and actual justice for Dotcom as opposed to a kangaroo court that only raises support for him?
“Seven, I’m sure soon to be demonstrated: that Techdirt doesn’t censor!”
No, it doesn’t. Some comments may be hidden if the public reading your words think you’re full of shit, but no censorship is taking place and Techdirt doesn’t do a damn thing.
“Top of my head. Almost everything Techdirt runs is The Official Story based only on the myth that government ever tells the truth.”
So, that’s where all the stories criticising the government come from, especially those pointing out that it’s lying? Brilliant!
I’m glad nobody’s paying you, because this is one of the poorest efforts yet. The industry has a big enough problem with wasting money on unworkable crap without paying for this level of poor workmanship.
Re: Re: One, that Techdirt is under constant attack by corporate shills. Actually, it's laughingstock; anything spent to troll it would be a waste.
So here’s a thought – in the last point, out_of_the_blue is claiming that most of the stories posted here are based on government lies.
Yet he’s also griped on multiple occasions that Techdirt posts primarily anti-copyright articles.
So he’s basically saying that the government is, by appearances, against copyright.
Wow, he can’t even troll logic right!
that's it?
one rogue nut-job posting to a website and you make an article out of it? Given that there are 7B people, of which 5%(?) are complete nut-jobs (certainly many times higher amoungst those tuned into the AM band of US talk-radio), it seems hardly newsworthy that one surfaced. Back to sleep.
Re: that's it?
Are the number of pollies, police, military leaders, corporation CEO’s and spy agency members at around 5% of the population?
Or are you including various other groups in your nut-job count?
Re: that's it?
I’ll never cease to be amused by people spending time to whine about a blog not writing about what they want it to write about.
Re: Re: that's it?
Even worse, writing about things they’re not even interested in. How dare they?!
just going to leave this out here.
Much of what “conspiracy types” have been saying these last several decades in regards to corrupt government groups has been proven true.
There are so many theories about 9/11 mostly based on history repeating itself and the numerous holes in the official story.
It is not the first time a ruling party has done a false flag attack to garnish support for an undesirable action and will not be the last if such a thing did occur on 9/11.
So considering much of what techdirt publishes that would be considered fringe lunacy theory maybe it is not so wise to mock them.
Re: Re:
“Much of what “conspiracy types” have been saying these last several decades in regards to corrupt government groups has been proven true.”
…and much of it is still unadulterated crap. Most of the true stuff is the stuff that was suspected by most people but never proven (e.g. mass spying), not the more outlandish claims.
“will not be the last if such a thing did occur on 9/11.”
Nor if it didn’t happen on 9/11. I’m not sure how most of the conspiracy theories are more plausible than the official one, but then again I’ve never had a proper explanation that didn’t devolve into frothing lunacy whenever the conspiracy theory was questioned.
“So considering much of what techdirt publishes that would be considered fringe lunacy theory “
Such as?
Re: Re: Re:
I always wondered why the Truthers decided to go with claiming that highly-trafficked public buildings in one of the largest cities in the world were wired with massive amounts of demolition charges and then struck by remote-piloted passenger planes. Why not just say that the intelligence community was purposely slacking off, subtlety manipulating terrorists into committing an atrocity that would give the US government an opportunity to seize power and control beyond its normal purview?
Unless, of course, the 9/11 false flag claims are a conspiracy false flag designed to distract us from the, er, real false flag?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I always wondered why the Truthers decided to go with claiming that highly-trafficked public buildings in one of the largest cities in the world were wired with massive amounts of demolition charges and then struck by remote-piloted passenger planes.”
Because in theory, at least, planes would not and could not have been been sufficient even in principle. This is what most engineers thought at the time, even those who explicitly supported the government theory later.
So if you need to get the buildings to go down one way or another, but need a cover for, you use the planes. Then you blow out a couple of key supporting elements. There’s no need for a carefully rigged job one way or another.
It is a false dichotomy to claim that you need either a year long highly technical precision rigging operation, so random office fires must have been sufficient (or alternatively one large explosion for the layman, but note that that isn’t the official theory).
Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
At best (if were unknown) that’s another HUGE failure of NSA.
Here’s an excellent review of why that simply can’t be:
10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/10-signs-that-isis-is-a-scripted-psyop?xg_source=activity
Sample:
Techdirt is proud of its NON-Truth! Repeats US / Israeli propaganda every day.
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Hey, that’s a great point, you should post that on the articles talking about ISIS… hmm, can’t seem to find the links, maybe you could look them up and point me to where TD talks about ISIS(other than their laughable attempts at using social media).
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
‘ISIS’ (daesh) exists, as does this freewheeling discussion about the possibility that we have been deceived.
Just saying
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
The NSA is a huge failure. Not sure what you’re trying to prove.
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
ISIS was created to fight against Assad just like Al Qaeda was created to fight against the Russians.
Nothing like home grown terror where the US government provides the funding training and arming of terrorists on the stupid hope they will only attack their mutual enemies instead of attacking the people that helped create them.
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
Enough of the former soviet union was caught warring alongside bin laden that it wasn’t against all the russians. AQ declared war against the US first. AQ also eventually declare war on the entire united nations as a whole and every nation in it, but it is mostly anti-american at its inception.
Re: Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
It was never home grown in the united states. Right now it’s our only active foreign war. Stupidity from abroad continually blames the US for the mistakes of their homeland.
Re: Ever notice that "ISIS" just popped up out of nowhere into high visibility, organized into effective military units, and well supplied?
“Ever notice that “ISIS” just popped up out of nowhere”
Not really. They existed before the US invaded Iraq, gained support among the displaced population there and moved forward quickly once Western troops pulled out. Their military power also grew during this time, and people were being warned about them since at least 2009. The group itself has been around since 1999, although it has operated under different names over the years.
Just because you weren’t paying attention before you were shown it directly by whatever right-wing nut collection you follow, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have a history.
“Repeats US / Israeli propaganda every day.”
Oh, you’re one of THOSE idiots… OK.
Knee-jerk ad-hominem is depressingly revealing way to title a piece..
Good call, pointing folk to Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Members have been repeat guests on QUALITY alternative media, which if the dweebers bashing truthers had been brought up on, they wouldn’t be expressing their moronic support of whichever-of-the-4-Conspiracy-Theories-from-The-Government-is-popular-this-week..
(Note that the Cass Sunstein & co. operations have massively polluted the net with faked kook-wad personalities, making a random websurfer think truthers as a category are crazy.)
I for one had no idea what a genuinely non-commercial (unlike NPR) radio network was until I moved near a big city on a coast upon moving to go to college. KPFK, with its Alan Watts and it’s midnightly AIDS science report (the 80s.. I’m an old fogey) just blew my mind. (Sad & ironic, though, that they don’t carry the very best conspiracy factualities program anywhere– maybe due to their otherwise-essential Background Briefing host constantly having to return to use of that utterly dumbed-down, weaponized smear term (“those Conspiracy Theorists”) EVEN THOUGH lately I thought he might be pulling his head out, when he interviewed Sen. Bob Graham who is among those calling for release of The 28 Pages redacted from Congress’ Joint Investigation, which apparently detail Saudis’ bankrolling of OBL & Co. SEE http://WWW.28pages.org )
ANYhow, one tunes in the best show, “Guns & Butter” right here in NorCal over KPFA.org ..
or in NYC area on WBAI.org..
https://kpfa.org/program/guns-and-butter/
and
GREAT NEWS.. the Pacifica Network now has an app for all the trackingdevice addicts who are radio-challenged & would rather stream things with a data plan:
http://www.kpfk.org/index.php/press-releases/6624-pacifica-radio-app
This here guy was a KGO 810AM talker up until recently.. very solid radio background- no slouch! Gives his truthly analysis in a great daily podcast. (AND does in-depth interviews with the likes of Russ Baker of WhoWhatWhy.com and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com .. etc et al!)
http://www.peterbcollins.com
Ye be LIBERTARIAN?? Here we have a great voice for freedom.. & PEACE.. AntiWarRadio’s Scott Horton.. interviewing truthtellers like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity’s Ray McGovern ON A REGULAR BASIS.. not to be missed:
http://scotthorton.org/feed/podcast/
Heroes like FBI agent Coleen Rowley tried to raise red flags & get the hijackers stopped ahead of time!
https://twitter.com/coleenrowley
And here’s the best introduction, in the form of an url. Why did Building 7 fall? At freefall speed, no less– when MF nothing struck it. (Actually no steel building such as the 2 Towers have ever fallen from fire– one in Chicago burned for weeks. There’s said to be but one single demolitions contractor on Earth that is able to “pull” such buildings, in fact! Oh man, don’t get me started. Marvin Bush was in charge of security that summer, where the elevators underwent “major rennovations”. And PLEASE read up on the horrific fate of John O’Neill:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-the-mysterious-death-of-john-oneill-fbi-counterterror-chief-in-charge-of-the-osama-bin-laden-investigation/5400606
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
And don’t miss this intrepid journalist’s work, re the handling of Atta down in his area of Venice Fla:
http://www.madcowprod.com
Here’s a good writer who appeared on Guns and Butter a few notable times (alas, searching kpfa’s new site only hits his 2 most recent appearances..)
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray+griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray+griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&keywords=david+ray+griffin
ps. its worth noting, that in refreshing memory of these links, use of www. disconnect.me basically always had a “[whatever I searched for] – DEBUNKED” link at the top of all results. Way to go Google, as cudgel-wielding revisionist propagandists for the Gov’t!
pps. All this which is to say, “Careful Your Managing Editor Doesnt Use Dumbed-Down Cliches & Expose His Ignorance!” Srsly. This is important. Quit watching moronic television and research your country’s history already.
Until the Snowden issue came up, conspiracy folks wore tin foil hats as far as public opinion went. Snowden gave them some creditability proving that one issue they were on was true and not speculation anymore. I’m not so sure that many of the things brought up might have a kernel of truth to them. Others are far outside the bounds of possibilities.
That is why I almost never follow celebrities. What’s the point?
FTFY.
I can’t find an authoritative reference, but I’ve read before that Shaq prided himself in doing his own posts on twitter and made fun of other celebrities that hired people to do it. When did that change?
Re: Re:
When did that change?
This was on Facebook, not Twitter. He could very well do his own Twitter feed and farm out his FB page. Though that would still be a bit hypocritical of him to mock others for farming out their twitter feed.
Re: Re: Re:
FB has two Twitter apps, one that lets you choose which tweets you post to Facebook by using the #fb tag, and one that posts ’em all to Facebook. He can live on Twitter and still post to Facebook.
And now I have a new conspiracy theory:
Techdirt has government shills writing for them.
Re: Re:
Even half-assed conspiracy theories tend to need some kind of proof. Your source?
Re: Re:
If this is OUR government, shouldn’t we all be government shills?
The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
… is their tendency to believe multiple conspiracies. Thought apparently you’re not supposed to think about more than one of them at once.
For example, I found one who believed in “free energy” that you could easily get from ordinary water to run something similar to a regular car engine. He also believed that there wasn’t enough energy in the aircraft fuel to bring down the World Trade Center. When I pointed out the deficit could have come from “free energy”, he got quite … um … defensive …
Science: it works, bitches!
Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
https://xkcd.com/966/
Re: Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
Sorry, completely forgot about chemtrails … maybe they’re not really a Tier-1 conspiracy theory …
Re: The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists ...
The Fun Thing With Conspiracy Theorists …
… is their tendency to believe multiple conspiracies.
Quite true, the likelihood of a person believing a conspiracy theory is predicted much better by whether they believe in other conspiracy theories than by anything about the new theory. I wonder what it is about certain brains that predisposes them in this way.
Re: Re: I wonder what it is about certain brain
The fact is, Governments and other powerful groups do do things that are, while perhaps not completely evil, are certainly morally questionable. Not all of it is a deliberate conspiracy—Hanlon’s Razor applies—but some of it is.
But even evil cannot disobey the laws of logic. Just because some things are conspiracies doesn’t mean everything is.
If you want to keep a sense of perspective about the whole thing and not go off the deep end, logical and critical thinking would seem to be an essential part of that.
Same repeating of unsubstantiated government agency sourced and torture corroborated nonsense as the BBC and the NYT: This post makes Techdirt seem like just as much of a propaganda site as all the others it regularly decries.
Add in a bit of guilt by association for the trifecta: It is insane to believe the illogical, and it is illogical to believe, just because some nutters believe it was a conspiracy, that all believers in conspiracy are nutters.
Et tu Olly, *ahem*, I mean “Brute”?
Is it too much to ask for a shred of decency and/or integrity?
Re: Re:
“Same repeating of unsubstantiated government agency sourced and torture corroborated nonsense”
Where? None of that is in the article above, only the non-governmentally corroborated fact that a basketball player’s website was used to post a conspiracy rant without his consent and a gentle mockery of people who believe the more outlandish claims.
What government information is being repeated?.
“Is it too much to ask for a shred of decency and/or integrity?”
You first. Is it too much to ask for one of you ranting tools to actually supply some specifics on what it is you don’t like reading here (with some citations, of course)? Saying “propaganda!” over and over again isn’t convincing anyone.
Re: Re: Re:
Where do you think the name “truther” comes from? Do you not remember that it was George W. Bush himself who started that particular line of attack?
“No true Scotsman” at its finest.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. I do however notice that you refused to answer the main requests.
“Where do you think the name “truther” comes from?”
I’d presume because these people are always loudly demanding “the truth” and the word is easier to say than “annoying conspiracy theorists”.
“Do you not remember that it was George W. Bush himself who started that particular line of attack?”
No, I don’t actually. Cite?
Who coined the phrase is pretty much irrelevant to the points at hand, anyway. Do you have anything substantial to say, or are you just going to argue about which names are used?
“”No true Scotsman” at its finest.”
You don’t understand what that term actually means, do you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“‘No true Scotsman” at its finest.’
You don’t understand what that term actually means, do you?”
No one who’s clued in to the way the world really works would misuse a logical fallacy like that.
He’s a plant from Timmeh, Mikey, and the Rest of the Techdirt gang to try and discedit those who really know the truth! Don’t be fooled!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The “true Scotsman” in this case is any person who is “clued in to the way the world really works would misuse a logical fallacy like that.”
Nice example of its use there.
Of course as an informal fallacy (as opposed to a strictly logical one) it can easily fit into more than one classification such as abusive ad hominem or even poisoning the well. You could even make it fit into the fallacy fallacy.
The thing that all informal fallacies share is the injection of irrelevant information into the argument, and in this case the irrelevant information is the fact that crazy nutters believe “X”.
You can turn it into a logical fallacy if you prefer thusly: If you are a nutter you are prone to believe X. You are prone to believe X, therefore you are a nutter.
So you LOGICAL fallacy is affirming the consequent.
But of course anyone who is clued in to the way the world really works would know this. 😛
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“But of course anyone who is clued in to the way the world really works would know this. :P”
NOT ONE OF US!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“No, I don’t actually. Cite?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’re confused about what a citation is. An out-of-context, undated video clip is not a citation unless the claim was something along the lines of “Bush never said word X” (it would be a poor citation even then, but at least relevant). You should be providing a citation proving that “Bush started this particular line of attack”, which the video you linked to in no way addresses.
Do you have an actual citation, or is the extend of your critical thinking ability?
Well, at least we’ve still got Trump. Nobody could possibly be paying anyone to come up with the stuff he spouts…
Re: Re:
I hear his wig is sentient and tells him what to tweet. 0.o
if it quacks like a duck, it must be a rabbit
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a rabbit. Our propaganda minister wouldn’t lie to us, would he?
It is obvious that those were controlled demolitions. I have a degree in physics, but that doesn’t matter. I have also worked in intelligence agencies and know that the term “conspiracy theorist” is deliberately used to keep secrets by ridicule, but that doesn’t matter, either. What matters is deciding whether to believe in your own eyes or in the lies of authority.
Re: if it quacks like a duck, it must be a rabbit
“What matters is deciding whether to believe in your own eyes or in the lies of authority.”
False dichotomy. The available evidence for controlled demolition is (to be the most charitable I can be) sketchy. But that doesn’t mean I believe the government’s story.
dude is a self proclaimed freemason?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJkiLmWo3CM
How do we define conspiracy?
Honest question, I’m not looking for a dictionary definition, we all know that… what we need is to establish what set or sets of conditions need to be in place before we can apply the ‘conspiracy’ label to a Human endeavor?
It seems to me that if any 2 or more actors/agents discuss plans involving another set of actors/agents without including the second set in their discussion then that scenario would constitute something like what the word conspiracy means?
Perhaps the more important distinction is whether or not the plan involves a real or perceived negative consequence for the parties that are not included in the discussion?
Does the word conspire always have a negative connotation? …I think it kind of does.
Maybe, if we have absolute trust in authority then we can assume that they are just ‘planning for us, without our knowledge’ …the trouble with that is, …I’m still struggling with the definition of ‘authority’ itself.
Transparency anyone?
Re: How do we define conspiracy?
“Does the word conspire always have a negative connotation? …I think it kind of does.”
Yes. It’s not even a connotation, it’s a denotation. I know you didn’t want a dictionary definition, but the dictionary does cover this. It’s a conspiracy when two or more people collude to do something illegal or harmful. “Conspiracy” is always negative.
Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?
My point is that the word has has become something of a laughingstock, even though there are genuinely harmful and unjust conspiracies percolating and through perturbing our government and our economy everywhere.
A self imposed conspiracy of confusion
Re: Re: Re: How do we define conspiracy?
…percolating through AND perturbing…
I’m attempting to embrace my doofishenss, I need a little slack!
9/11 was an inside job.
Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
“A sure sign of a fool is to dismiss anything that falls outside of one’s experience, as impossible.“
Dear Tim;
Is there anything that you think “might be real”, that is not covered by the US Government’s Official List of Real Things and Events That Actually Can and Do Happen On Earth?
Just curious.
—
Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Oh, yeah, I’m a TOTAL government apologist on all things.
eyeroll
Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
“Oh, yeah, I’m a TOTAL government apologist on all things.“
But you can’t answer the question I asked??
Odd. It didn’t seem to be really all that difficult.
At least I thought it was fairly simple.
To simplify further: do you think that anything not officially recognised as “reality”, is possible?
As Dark Helmet, its obvious from your posts that you are not the fool who only believes in those things and events he has personally experienced, considering all else to be folly, pipe-dreams, or simply impossible.
So I wonder if you are judging reality via the popular playbook of accepted things, or if you are simply avoiding the very name-calling you so easily dish out, in the same way that a god-less politician takes the moral high ground by claiming to adhere to religious beliefs.
In a single post, you painted a large portion of the population with a hand-full of nutter brushes, as if it was something you do on a daily basis, apparently dismissing all of their arguments out of hand, as childish fantasy.
I’m simply wondering if your world is as fully mundane as you seem to claim, or if, like so many others, you fear ridicule for your own unpopular beliefs – thus I asked if you actually have any such unpopular beliefs.
I’m not even asking you to name them.
If you – I’m assuming you are Tim – are unable or unwilling to answer, just ignore this post. It is only for my own curiosity and unimportant to the big picture.
If you are not Tim, please ignore this post.
—
Re: Re: Re: Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Hmmmm…
Unable or unwilling.
No surprises here. 🙂
—
Re: Re: Re:2 Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Neither actually, I just have other things to do beyond continued checking of old posts for personal requests of me. But here you go.
1. Do I accept that things outside of my direct view can exist? Sure.
2. Do I believe that official stories aren’t always the real stories, including official stories from our silly, stupid government? Sure.
3. Do I believe that the government has in the past used false information to push us into war, or expand war? I don’t think that can even be in doubt, actually, with the Golf of Tonkin incident(s) being pretty settled history and all the bullshit Henry Kissinger pulled, not to mention what Reagan did just prior to his election.
4. Do I believe that our same stupid government that couldn’t properly pull off even these smallish conspiracies could effectively pull off the 9/11 attacks, or conspire to allow them to happen, with ALL the pieces that would have to be involved, with ALL the people that would have to stay silent, with ALL the complicity we’d need from foreign governments to the tune of foisting upon us 2 wars and all this nonsense security? Please, don’t make me laugh. No government is that good, nevermind ours. The fact that you have full on proof of earlier conspiracies proves it. The fact that you had an Al Qaeda group perfectly willing to lay claim to the attacks and to claim motivation for the attacks prior to them occurring means there no reason NOT to believe they committed the crimes.
9/11 truthers are a sad breed of people unwilling to believe several things: government ISN’T so powerful as to be able to keep us completely safe at its whim, evil DOES exist in the world, religion is a MASSIVE problem in Earthly affairs, and there isn’t a nice little box you can put every tragedy into to explain it. The world is chaos. Get used to it. Stop hiding from it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Well, thank you very much Mister Helmet.
That wasn’t so hard now was it.
So, in conclusion, you apparently only accept the existence of a “conspiracy” event, if it fails completely and its perps, purpose and plans are consequently exposed fully by massive amounts of irrefutable evidence.
If so, it would appear that you think that successful large-scale “conspiracy” events cannot actually happen, or are as rare as 30 pound diamonds, because:
– “long list of how utterly incompetent and stupid, billionaires, politicians, and leaders of business are, compared to the analytical brilliance of Joe Six-pack“.
For someone with your obvious grasp of reality, this is extremely disappointing.
Successful conspiracy events do happen and quite often, but without the evidence that a failed conspiracy provides, the majority of the public cannot perceive the events as anything but natural, or not at all.
It is, in fact, only rarely that a well-planned, top-level conspiracy fails, which of course gives rise to the popular belief that you obviously hold true; that conspiracy events themselves, are extremely rare.
Such a belief is almost as head-in-the-sand as religion, or the belief that politicians are good people trying to do a difficult job, but as so many have found, it is a belief system that definitely lets one sleep more soundly at night.
Sleep well Dark Helmet.
—
Re: Re: Re:4 Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
“Neither actually, I just have other things to do beyond continued checking of old posts for personal requests of me. But here you go.“
And of course, I understand fully, that as such a busy human, there is really no expectation of you wasting your valuable time “checking old posts for personal requests” and responding to this old post – again.
Feel free to ignore this old post.
—
Re: Re: Re:5 Nutaphobia - the fear of being called a conspiracy nut.
Hmmmm… could it be in fact, that the Helmet is Dark because he has it on backwards – with the eye holes at the back of his head, preventing the recognition of any undesirable information…. and a list of things that are for really real, printed on the inside back of the helmet – now facing the eyes….
Would explain much…
Oh well, c’est la vie eh.
Nice talking at ye Tim.
—
The "C" Word
“The Shaquille O’Neal Story”
Oh yeah! Shaq!
He kinda got lost in the dialogue there somewhere …
Geez. Somone musta used the C word.
—