Forum Thread

I am allowed to criticize Ms Maddow"s position on 9/11

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Green Party
    Arkansas
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just trying to understand the rules
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    In a rational way, yes. In an emotional, religious, rightwing way, no.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You can criticize Ms. Madow's views on anything including her opinion on 9/11, but you should have a bonifide reason (s) for doing so and have a legimate argument to bolster your criticism and also be prepared for the posting of opposing views to yours. Other than that post away.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes, you can critcize anyone here rationally

    Examples:
    This is okay: I'm upset at Obama because he should not have signed [Insert Bill Name] because it infringes on the rights of people in this way.

    This is not: Obama signed [Insert Bill Name] because he is trying to destroy America and is a secret Muslim/Birther/communist or whatever


    I'm not very strict with banning people/removing post. As long as your are presenting things is a civil manner and not spamming you should have nothing to worry about.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I also hate when people change the names of people/things just to be insulting. Stuff like "tea-baggers' and Rachel "Madcow" just really annoy me. Doing that doesn't strengthen your position at all and it suggests that you don't feel your position is strong to stand on it's own without ad hominem attacks.

    I don't usually remove posts unless that type of language is excessive, but when I do, i don't feel at all bad about it =)
  • Other Party
    Iowa
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    One question I have is this: Rachel Maddow has been an absolute BULLDOG with this Christie story and the West Virginia coal sludge and slurry and toxic chemical spills, but it's absolutely hands' off any questioning of the Bush administration's actions on 9/11 and all the really bad stuff that went down that day what with the actions of NORAD and all the other agencies who seemed to drop the ball. I've mentioned this to her several times on Facebook, as I thought it odd for her, a Rhodes Scholar, to call all the architects and engineers and scholars and lawyers and citizens for 911 Truth "foolish" and "dangerous" with their "nefarious conspiracies". Here's an example of her "reporting" on the issue:

    This is the intro to the clip:
    "With an uncharacteristic lack of journalistic and historical integrity, Maddow points to the 9/11 Commission Report as fact while making absolutely no mention of the Jersey Girls who were also widows of victims and the primary motivating force behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission Report due to the inadequacy of the official account."


    http://911truthnews.com/rachel-maddow-trashes-911-truth/

    Her tone, even if I wasn't a "truther" myself, is insultingly condescending, and apparently Alex Jones is the only representative of the "conspiracy theorists" she can locate out of the THOUSANDS of people she could interview--any of the Jersey Girls or any member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, etc.

    She completely discounts any of the large number of books dealing with unanswered questions re 9/11, and she's snarky and holds up Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission as shining examples of truth.

    The commission was "set up to fail", as Thomas Kean said, and if I can google "unanswered questions" such as the Family Steering Committee wanted answers to but did not get, it's unbelievable that someone like Maddow would have no problem with anything out of the ordinary on that day but again is a veritable bulldog when it comes to a governor's malfeasance. I asked her if she'd seen the big "Rethink 9/11" billboard posted on Times Square all through December. She says she reads all her mail but she sure doesn't respond.

    It's as if she never heard, getting back to Cheney, of the PNAC and the neocons and their document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and their "Statement of Principles" and their need for a New Pearl Harbor (the title of a David Ray Griffin book-he's a truther!) to get the American people signed on.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm sorry, but when one of their 'contributors' is Santa Clause from 'The Onion', I have a very hard time taking 911Truth.org seriously. Won't even go into the fact that then deny LIVE video evidence and any expert in their field that contradicts them (including about how the Twin Towers could fall like they did without demolition). To me (and this is just my opinion) when they use Santa Clause as a source, they make themselves a laughing stock. (For those who think I'm lying about their 'contributor' here's their own website... http://www.911truth.org/?category_name=begin_questioning&tag=controlled-demolition ) I won't even go into how easy most of what they say is to debunk, this isn't about the conspiracy theory, its about a commentators disdain for a website that frankly (again, in my opinion) deserves it if they use Santa Clause as a source. (Never mind the fact that the Onion is about as believable as tabloids...)
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And... I suppose Colbert is a Liberal also!
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't care if he is a Liberal or not, he is a funny guy though.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Colbert is the "first lady of France".

    That's what he called himself after he attended the recent State Dinner for the French president. The French prez was unaccompanied, so sitting next to Michelle was Colbert in the seat the French first lady would normally occupy.

    He is pretty good, like Leno able to make fun of all people on all sides.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I had never known Rachel's opinion on 9/11 until this article here today. I can see that she has a reputation to maintain, & it does not help her credibility to subscribe to too many "conspiracy theories." So maybe that is part of the situation. She also has sponsors to answer to, & they may have an axe to grind, or some legal issue, which forbids getting into that area of discussion. However, I am sure of her integrity & her wish to tell the truth in all matters. Even if her sponsor may not completely agree.

    The problem with 9/11 -- it almost makes one side of the issue appear to be a Patriot, & if you take the opposite side, it makes that person a target to be called "unpatriotic" -- & it sets up that unreal dichotomy that polarizes all our opinions today. I may step "into it" by saying this, but I happen to disbelieve the official story of 9/11. I do not believe a bunch of foreign guys got onto a plane with boxcutters, with pilot training, (one way only), & decided to crash the plane into 2 huge bldgs, which action would incinerate them & all passengers, & demolish the bldgs into rubble. I cannot see any possible advantage to them or their "cause" by doing that.

    Maybe insanity would explain it, or some religious "zeal" to die & meet 70 virgins, -- but heck, these days they could much easier get signed up for a Muslim-Matchup or any other dating site : ) Osama wrote a Fatwah saying he thought the USA tended to favor Israel much more than Palestine, but he did not make me believe it was worth all that effort, (the 9/11 terrorism) just to make that obvious point.

    On the other hand, 35,000 people did not show up to work that day, in the WTC --- which indicates that they were "warned" that something big was going to happen ---- & you can BET that the Muslim terrorists did NOT warn the employees in the WTC beforehand. It just so happened that our govt was having some sort of "exercise" or Military "war games" that very day, so they had shut down the radar on the Pentagon & some other bldgs. It also just so happened that those "imaginary" war games, involved some guys hijacking an aircraft to be used to crash into some US bldgs. There was a lot of confusion that day, with aircraft controllers saying "What? This exercise was not supposed to happen till later on."

    Also, we know that Cheney was all poised to "shoot down" one of the hijacked planes, & then we are supposed to believe that the passengers all decided to "Roll it" & crash the plane themselves. It all looks like a bad "science fiction" plot, to me. The Pentagon was also supposedly hit that same day, & mysteriously, they had just found there were Million$ of dollars of "money missing" from their Budget. But if your bldg & all your computers blow up, you never get caught with a math problem, & don't need to answer for it, or replace the money.

    I read a book that year (author's last name Thierry) & title (something like) "The Truth about 911". He was from France, & his book was expertly detailed, in several ways. Rather mysteriously, his book was almost "banned" for the United States & was very hard to find. I had a librarian look it up for me, & it took her 3 months to locate a copy -- otherwise I would have had to order it from France. I sort of expected it to be some wild conjecture, but the minute I opened the cover, I was enthralled. It was fascinating to read, & the author obviously was qualified to pursue this kind of story. (And writers in France were obviously "less biased" than Americans would have been).

    In the meantime, we were all being told whatever the Govt wanted us to believe. Normally I would NEVER DOUBT our govt, but so many things in that situation just didn't ring true. (And our govt in those days was being run by George "W" Bush, & that alone would evoke a certain lack of confidence in its veracity). Like, for instance, his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Then the reason for the invasion, like WMD that did not exist. Then the 9/11 attack was done by Osama bin Laden, as Condi Rice told him, but then suddenly they had amnesia & thought that it was Saddam Hussein who had done it. This kind of mind-numbing confusion had everybody speechless, & unable to react appropriately. So we did nothing.

    Since we could not believe in WMD, (which were never found) & since Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, there was actually NO REASON to be launching a pre-emptive strike (bombing attack) on IRAQ in 2003. So what we actually did, was an illegal action according to international law, and it was a real "war crime." Not being afraid of "overdoing it," Bush continued the WAR for another 5 yrs. What did he hope to accomplish, besides bombing an ancient civilization into rubble? (Shhh -- there are 1,000's of oil wells over there). And once in, it is very hard to get out of a war. Generals tend to stay as long as possible. So Obama had to remain for several yrs also, as he was told that we just need one more "surge" & the usual psycho-babble. Until finally the US was done fighting in Iraq -- Dec. 2011. -- Now get this: Amazingly, as gung-ho as the Bush crowd was over starting that war, they hardly raised an eyebrow, when Obama troops killed Osama bin Laden. (No victory signs at all).

    Unfortunately, Bush had also "lied to" many of our allies in the United Nations, so they also were involved in the pre-emptive strike against an innocent nation which had never threatened us or attacked us. And which had no WMD, which had been the primary excuse for the invasion in the first place. Now our allies were being slaughtered & bankrupted by this insane war also. And our economy was sinking like a lead balloon, due to all the expense of maintaining an 8 yr war. It was excessive stupidity & greed that caused that war, & we have never yet seen any apology.

    The aftermath of 9/11 is that we have excessive scrutiny at our airports, forced to disrobe, restrict liquids, leave baggage behind, & be subjected to a full body scan, showing us in the nude; we have cameras at every intersection; we have NSA surveillance over our internet activity; & there
    are drones flying around US cities. NOT TO WORRY. After all, we are 30 yrs behind the prediction of Orwell's "1984".
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Not going to go into the conspiracy theory, just going to point out a few facts. Al-Quaida is a group who has repeatedly shown (in Iraq and Afghanistan) that they will blow themselves up to take out who they consider enemies, so yes, its very easy to believe they would crash a plane to kill thousands. Second, as to Osama Bin Laden's Fatwaha (The actual Romanized spelling...), you do realize the his first fatwa was entitled, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" and that in his second Fatwaha he and the others that signed it called themselves, the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" and it states that the Front's "Ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it". Those two Fatwaha's kind of contradict what you said about Osama Bin Laden...

    (Side note, if it wasn't against the rules I'd debate the conspiracy theory)