Ajarn Forum - Living and Teaching In Thailand - View Single Post

robitusson · 8th March 2008, 05:31

Why is that question relevant? Have you read what he says about the American press? It's not exactly flattering reading.

And who are these shadowy powerful interests? Either he interviewed the bombers' families or he didn't. Either he inetrviewed Bin Laden and reported what he said or he didn't. His journalism is so detailed, so comprehensive, that if facts and issues were being made up or left out, the massive holes or blatant cover-ups would be easily spotted.

So did he supposedly make up the interviews with the bombers' families just to go along with the big cover up? Was he all the while writing in-depth, factual coverage and commentary on all the other aspects of Middle East politics, then covering up the real c.t. story? Is this what we have to believe?

I'm just wondering where does the c.t. end. It seems that in order to follow the c.t. then everything else apart from it is a lie too. If it is true, then nothing can be accepted. It's either or. No in-between. Just one or the other.

The amateur internet reporting that strung together a c.t. story which is totally out of synch with all preceeding events is relying on the faith of its adherents to carry it on. The story has a clearly obvious agenda and requires beliefs in a totally paranoid world view as a basis. It's also waaaay too simplistic.

Frankly the c.t was mildly amusing for a while but it's dragging on now. The hardcore adherents will stick to it forever of course, but eventually it'll just assume it's place in the long line of all the other c.t.s out there that the culture has brought up until the next one comes along.

8th March 2008, 05:31	#55 (permalink)
robitusson robitusson is the irish walter chronkite of ajarnforum Dis-member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Bkk Posts: 12,786 vCash: 5300 Rep Power: 1770	Re: 9/11 Redux Why is that question relevant? Have you read what he says about the American press? It's not exactly flattering reading. And who are these shadowy powerful interests? Either he interviewed the bombers' families or he didn't. Either he inetrviewed Bin Laden and reported what he said or he didn't. His journalism is so detailed, so comprehensive, that if facts and issues were being made up or left out, the massive holes or blatant cover-ups would be easily spotted. So did he supposedly make up the interviews with the bombers' families just to go along with the big cover up? Was he all the while writing in-depth, factual coverage and commentary on all the other aspects of Middle East politics, then covering up the real c.t. story? Is this what we have to believe? I'm just wondering where does the c.t. end. It seems that in order to follow the c.t. then everything else apart from it is a lie too. If it is true, then nothing can be accepted. It's either or. No in-between. Just one or the other. The amateur internet reporting that strung together a c.t. story which is totally out of synch with all preceeding events is relying on the faith of its adherents to carry it on. The story has a clearly obvious agenda and requires beliefs in a totally paranoid world view as a basis. It's also waaaay too simplistic. Frankly the c.t was mildly amusing for a while but it's dragging on now. The hardcore adherents will stick to it forever of course, but eventually it'll just assume it's place in the long line of all the other c.t.s out there that the culture has brought up until the next one comes along. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last edited by robitusson; 8th March 2008 at 05:48.