Bono's Comments on Terrorism - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-20-2007, 05:09 PM   #81
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
If there were no credible scientific debunking (as there clearly is)...
Please tell me where is this "credible scientific debunking"?
__________________

bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:21 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,771
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.
Heh, good point .

Angela
__________________

Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 11-20-2007, 05:48 PM   #83
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan

Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.

Actually, this is a common 9/11 myth that is easily refuted. Prof. David Ray Griffin addresses this myth here:

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

9/11 Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats---such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.


Text here: 911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

Video here: video.google.com/url?docid=-275577066688213413

Furthermore, there is no reason why 9/11 could not have been perpetrated with by the 19 "terrorists" as Oswald-like "patsies" and small team of people to plant demoltions in the World Trade Center buildings.
bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 07:23 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:21 PM
So, let's see, believe the tin-foil hat wearers or a peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks the conspiracy theories?

I'll take the side of science, thank you.

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
I have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from a top ranked university
And President Bush has an M.B.A. from Harvard University. Between his failed business ventures and now this, it's pretty obvious that education does not necessarily correlate to intellect.
melon is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 07:37 PM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.
Fascinating. Where are they? Because I've seen some "documentaries" on the subject that are complete and total bullshit. Where are the ones proving "beyond any doubt" that it was an inside job?

Sorry if I have some doubts that George W. Bush can create a conspiracy.

Please give me some credible evidence first, not your educational background and links to a bunch of nitwits spouting off ridiculous nonsense based on 2% facts and statistics and 98% stupidity.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:21 PM   #86
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
So, let's see, believe the tin-foil hat wearers or a peer-reviewed scientific paper that debunks the conspiracy theories?

I'll take the side of science, thank you.
Let's consider examine the paper you cite and see if it is really scientifically valid or not.

Figure 1:



(1) Do you really think a 16 story building-top can plow all the way through some 84 bottom stories intact (note that the top is of lighter weight steel than the bottom)?

(2) Do you really think it could do this at free fall speed (meaning that almost nothing was holding it up)?

(3) Do you really think it could plow down some 84 floors without tipping over (or otherwise taking the path of least resistance)?

(4) Do you know that the 9/11 videos show that the building-top is destroyed at the beginning of the "collapse" (not the end)?
bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:26 PM   #87
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Where are the ones proving "beyond any doubt" that it was an inside job?
Watch "How the Towers Fell" by Architect Richard Gage:
Quote:
Please give me some credible evidence first, not your educational background and links to a bunch of nitwits spouting off ridiculous nonsense based on 2% facts and statistics and 98% stupidity.
Again, start with Building 7:

This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.
bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:43 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Let's consider examine the paper you cite and see if it is really scientifically valid or not.

Figure 1:



(1) Do you really think a 16 story building-top can plow all the way through some 84 bottom stories intact (note that the building is made lighter weight steel than the bottom)?

(2) Do you really think it could do this at free fall speed (meaning that almost nothing was holding it up)?

(3) Do you really think it could plow down some 84 floors without tipping over (or otherwise taking the path of least resistance)?

(4) Do you know that the 9/11 videos show that the building-top is destroyed at the beginning of the "collapse" (not the end)?
I'm guessing you didn't read it, because the answers to your questions are in the first two pages.

Quote:
Many disasters other than the WTC attest to the danger of progressive collapse, e.g., the collapse of Ronan Point apartments in the United Kingdom in 1968, where a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor sent a 25-story stack of rooms to the ground; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., in 1995, where the air blast pressure
sufficed to take out only a few lower floors, whereas the upper floors failed by progressive collapse; the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. tower in Boston in 1971, triggered by punching of insuffi-
ciently hardened slab; the New World Hotel in Singapore; many buildings in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico City, and other earthquakes, etc. A number of ancient towers failed in this way, too, e.g., the Civic Center of Pavia in 1989; the cathedral in Goch, Germany; the Campanile in Venice in 1902, etc., where the trigger was centuries-long stress redistribution due to drying shrinkage and creep.
So, right there, there is considerable precedent for the idea of "progressive collapse." Secondly, any discussion of the WTC and architecture immediately has to point out that the building, itself, was an early example of postmodern architecture, and, as such, valued function over form. That "function" was to maximize office rental space, and that meant sacrificing traditional modernist architectural stability by, essentially, creating a building that was only held up by its exterior. In other words, you cannot necessarily compare the WTC to many other buildings of the modern era, because the building itself was an aberration to the norm. As such, "progressive collapse" was a particular flaw with this building design, which the original architect himself has acknowledged.

The paper also introduces another point that is worth mentioning:

Quote:
Because of the shroud of dust and smoke, these histories can be identified from the videos of the collapsing WTC towers only for the first few seconds of collapse, and so little can be learned in this regard from that collapse.
This, in particular, is true, because one major fallacy is that video/film/photography is inerrantly reliable. We run into similar problems regarding anti-government Waco conspiracies in the 1990s. The anti-government conspiracy theory writers were good at taking specific frames of video and identifying them as "proof" of some vast government conspiracy; watching the entire videos would often disprove those conspiracies immediately.

I'm sorry, but your arguments do not pass sufficient scientific muster to be taken seriously whatsoever. If you have as many credentials as you say you do, then I would suggest putting your effort where your mouth is and sponsor a research study/paper of your own, open for peer review.

Until then, these ideas are little more than mythic speech.
melon is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 08:55 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Again, start with Building 7:

This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.
The NIST draft report regarding the cause of WTC 7's collapse isn't complete yet.

Regardless, for such a "conspiracy," it has been noted that WTC 7 took on such comprehensive damage that the building was fully evacuated. WTC 7, unlike the other buildings, had been expected to collapse for several hours, due to a very prominent and visible bulge in the building.

From an interview with a 9/11 firefighter:

Quote:
We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Q: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
A: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
That sounds far more plausible than an out-of-context animated GIF with 3/4 of the building obscured.
melon is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 09:01 PM   #90
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I'm guessing you didn't read it, because the answers to your questions are in the first two pages.
I have read the paper, I was asking questions to you so we could determine if the paper is scientifically valid or not.

Quote:
So, right there, there is considerable precedent for the idea of "progressive collapse."
Sorry, none of the buildings you reference disintegrate to the ground like the WTC buildings did. In fact, that only happens to steel buildings during controlled demolition.

Quote:
As such, "progressive collapse" was a particular flaw with this building design, which the original architect himself has acknowledged.
No, the WTC twin towers were over-engineered to with stand anything including airplane impacts. There was no "architectural flaw", we know this because NIST makes no mention of it in its 10,000 page report on the "collapses".

Quote:
This, in particular, is true, because one major fallacy is that video/film/photography is inerrantly reliable.
Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?

Quote:
I'm sorry, but your arguments do not pass sufficient scientific muster to be taken seriously whatsoever.
Please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?
bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 09:09 PM   #91
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The NIST draft report regarding the cause of WTC 7's collapse isn't complete yet.
Yes, that is because NIST could not explain it without considering controlled demolition.

It defies simple laws of physics.



You seem to be in denial of the obvious, try watching this:

bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 09:15 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,560
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors


Yes, that is because NIST could not explain it without considering controlled demolition.

It defies simple laws of physics.



You seem to be in denial of the obvious, try watching this:

randhail is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 09:28 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:21 AM
I'm have a Bsc. and have done a bit of structural geology and physics.

What would be the momentum of those upper stories after a short collapse through the weakened floors? Steel, concrete and glass are pretty heavy, would it simply stop? If it was a controlled demolition or a fire weakening (but not melting) the steel it wouldn't make a difference to the effect. Those floors collapse and the top ones go down with all that mass towards ground. The floors beneath have resistance from the earth so they have nowhere to go.

Why would a skyskcraper fall to the side as the path of least resistance for a downward collapse?

Isn't a controlled demolition supposed to make a building implode on itself by making the structure fail internally? Not unlike (but quicker than) crashing a plane into a building doing initial damage and then having all the remaining fuel as well as internal materials burn away.

Jet fuel and office debris are not a good mix with fire
Quote:
Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?
Right, a relatively few number of cameras in set positions versus how many focused on the towers on September 11? Why is it that photographic evidence for controlled demolitions and missiles is mutually exclusive to other pictures that show things like debris?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 09:29 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Sorry, none of the buildings you reference disintegrate to the ground like the WTC buildings did. In fact, that only happens to steel buildings during controlled demolition.
Those buildings were only mentioned as examples of the existence of "progressive collapse" as a phenomenon. As I stated before, the WTC towers were such a fundamentally different paradigm in architecture that you cannot compare these towers to any conventional steel structure. In fact, the WTC towers upset some prominent modernists so much that they literally killed themselves over it.

The WTC towers were designed quite differently by having the structures supported by the exterior, rather than the interior. For this reason alone, this is why a plane crashing into a conventionally-built skyscraper like the Empire State Building would, at most, have only led to the potential collapse of the floors above the impact zone.

This conventional theory of collapse is what bin Laden counted on:

Quote:
"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
His "experience in this field" is a likely reference to the fact that the bin Laden family is known as being a highly successful construction company in Saudi Arabia.

It is this fundamental difference between conventional skyscraper architecture and the postmodern departure of the WTC that likely drives this conspiracy. Yet, for reasons that I have explained, such a collapse is to be expected in the WTC towers, due to the unconvential sacrifice of form over function.

Quote:
No, the WTC twin towers were over-engineered to with stand anything including airplane impacts. There was no "architectural flaw", we know this because NIST makes no mention of it in its 10,000 page report on the "collapses".
Yes, the WTC towers would have been engineered to withstand airplane impacts...according to early 1970s standards.

Quote:
Like all modern skyscrapers, WTC towers were designed to survive major fires, but not necessarily those that involved aviation fuel.

After the 2001 attacks, Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land. According to Robertson, the modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing. As FEMA pointed out in its report, this implies a slower and smaller plane than those involved in the actual impacts of 9/11. Robertson also said that they lacked a good understanding of the effects of such large fires on the structures.
Quote:
Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?
Do take note of one word there: "inerrantly." A study of documentary films reveals heavy controversy in the nature of what constitutes "bias," even inadvertent. Choosing to edit your video, you are making a "bias" as to what's important--and, more importantly, as to what's not important. Can that bias be trusted?

Take your animated GIF there for a moment, and let's look at it like a filmmaker. A documentary filmmaker would see the "bias" in the fact that that shot was framed in a way that 3/4 of the building is covered, and, as such, is unreliable, because of what it does not show--the bottom 3/4 of the building. It would also "not show" the events like described by the firefighter interview. You are basically demanding that we make a judgment in your favor on the basis of approximately five seconds, whereas you willfully disregard the substantial evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?
No. There's your logical fallacy right there. This kind of argument would state that you cannot defend science, because one is not a scientist.

But here's what I'm telling you. The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up." That is, intelligent design is not on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, just because it "says" it has value. Likewise, these conspiracy theories cannot demand equal footing, without surviving substantial scientific review. Lumping together a bunch of ideologically convenient statements with a bunch of fringe scientists or academics is exactly what "intelligent design" is, and that's exactly what kind of crap you're spouting here.

Again, with your scientific doctoral credentials, it should be no problem to author a vigorously researched scientific paper for peer review, if "all the evidence is in your favor" like you believe.

So I'm telling you right now:

Put up or shut up.

Until then, science demands that we stick with the current body of scientists and academics, who believe that the WTC towers were destroyed, due to terrorist attacks. I do not have to be a scientist to uphold science. The burden is on you to construct the kind of evidence that will survive scientific and logical scrutiny. Lucky for you, your doctorate gives you that such power. You'll either turn out to be a hero or a laughing stock.

So what will it be?
melon is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:24 PM   #95
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Watch "How the Towers Fell" by Architect Richard Gage:


This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.
I've seen it before: it doesn't give me anything nearly as credible as what Melon has been saying.

Refute what Melon says with legitimate arguments, and then we'll see. He's pretty much nailed it so far.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:33 PM   #96
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Please note that 214 architects & engineers have endorsed "How the Towers Fell" here: ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Well I'd like to see the list. Here's the thing, architects(in most states) require 4 semesters of structures, enough for them to understand but by no means experts, they hand the structural design over to experts. The only experts I would take are structural engineers and even then, this is an active load that most don't study for...
BVS is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:37 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:21 PM
I was wondering about the credentials of the 214.

And I wonder how they define "endorse." Is it honestly 214 people in that profession who blatantly stated "This makes more sense than the terrorism explanation" or was it 214 guys who said, "Your theory could have some merit." Considering how nuts most of these guys, I'd guess the latter.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:57 AM   #98
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 01:21 AM
To get back on topic.....


What I find disturbing about all this is that Bono now feels he needs to toe some sort of White House line about what is and isn't acceptable to say to Bush about his policies. And it isn't even with regards to protesting, or even criticizing...just, maybe, a simple asking of questions and expecting some sort of serious answer. And we all know that Bono is not Chavez...he would be as polite as he could about it, but forceful in his own way as well. But apparently, asking questions isn't acceptable in this White House. Asking questions that raise serious issues gets you permanently thrown out--"denied access." This has happened not only with American journalists and news organizations, but with foreign ones as well. IN recall an incident in Dublin in 2002 where an Irish journalist persisted in asking questions to Bush during an interview and Bush (clearly unaccunstomed to such radical treatment) squirmed in his seat and said, "No, no, you musn't ask--" etc ,etc, clearly looking for a White House minder to bail him out of the situation, and it didn't happen. Next day, that reporter's magazine found itself permenently banned from Bush interviews.

What disturbs me is that this is not cases of reporters being rude or abusive or "going out of bounds". This is just reporters asking questions in general, any questions at all, other than "fluff" questions or ones that frame White House polices in a good light. And if we had not been used to 200+ yrs of a climate where people could ask questions to those in power, then no foreign or domestic journalist would even try. But we tell ourselves (like that Dublin journalist did) that we live in more democratic time and our leaders are not autocratic kings, who are distant figures unassailable behind their fortresses--and just as uninfluenceable.American news organizations have learned at what little press conferences there are, not to ask hard-hitting or even serious questions or risk losing White House access, without which their organizations would profoundly suffer or even be put out of business (for how can one survive if you can't report on government?) A climate of inquiry is thus discouraged, and one of passive acquiesance is encouraged instead--until everyone "gets it" and whne they begin exhibiting the desired behavior, they are finally re-admitted, and ona selective basis, like trained Pavlov dogs. Thus, even a question that is for a good purpose, not necessarily anti-policy, becomes inherently hostile (how many American lives were saved by that courageous soldier who had the nerve to actually ask a serious question at a news conference, to wit, why body armor issued to troops in the field in Iraq was so shoddy. Within hours he was reviled as a traitor by the MSM, people accused him of being a liberal plant, etc. But he wasn't criticizing the war. In fact, just the opposite. He was in a sense "supporting" the war and being a bigger patriot by wanting the troops to be better protected. But in the current climate of hostilty to outside opinion, it was the act of asking the question in public that was the real crime more than what he said. The "law" had been laid down, and he broke it.

This is what troubles me--when the Fourth Estate has surrendered its role as the guardian of democracy, in a sense the media are the biggest in this role. And instead sit down at the communal table and feast with the oppressors. And this should not be a poltical thing. By this token, this same attitude of passive submissievness should continue on, whoever is the next President. We shall see.


Bono may indeed be willing to follow his self-professed policy of "having lunch with the Devil" to get what he wants but I would be disturbed to find out if he has become as genuinely afraid and cautious as everyone else. I can see it now: instead of boycotting Arizona for not celebrating MLK"s birthday, he'd send a letter to Governor Meacham requesting a meeting to discuss the situation, and no doubt Meacham would have accepted eagerly, grateful for the photo-op. And Bono would have politely asked him why MLK was such a problem, and the Gov would have palmed some twaddle off his lower lip, and Bono would have declined to argue with him out of fear that he would lose some conservative Arizona votes for the One campaign, when he wants to get to a membership total of 2 million or whatever it is. And after the media heat was off the Gov, say, after a month, he'd go on as before. I don't think in the end AZ ever got MLK's birthday on the books. But the fact that serious heat was raised over the issue, that is what counted. Heat that wouldn't have been raised if there was photo-op. Now, if 250,000 letters had poured into the Gov's office, maybe he would have changed his mind. Maybe not. Sometimes, with an issue that really hits an emotional nerve--like the percieved racial issue--250,000 angry polite "Pretty please" letters would not make any more of a positive difference than a million polite letters to Governor Wallace from the SCLC would have in 1961. MLK"s birthday is small fry. It's not the issue at hand or the topicality ofit; it's the fact that the more you adhere to this mindset, the more it becomes THE mind-set for good--the more it becomes your personal policy and worldview, whatever the situation....But I'm just opening the old can of worms

Fine. But small, harmless issues like this have a way of growing. A politician would find more serious ways of exploiting this situation, and where would Bono draw the line? No sweat if you're talking about a harmless issue like MLK, but things grow. Of course this kind of thing could never happen to Bono, concievably, b/c he has picked a "safe" issue. But substitute a journalist with an issue that isn't so safe, and throw in a climate of passive subjugation. Even in an non-American context. I feel sorry, for example, for Chinese activists trying to draw attention to the shoddy quality of some Chinese goods and foodstuffs sold to Chinese, in their own country.

And that is what really matters. It astounds me at how quickly the American public has come to accept this as normal--"Shhh, don't ask questions or you will lose White House access, for ever and ever" has NOT been the policy of even the White House,let alone news organizations, for most if not all of this country's history. Not even during World Wars. In the past, you could tick off a Presdient and there would eventually be some way they'd punish you, get your reporter fired or whatever. But the climate of virtually unquestioned power and authority, to the point where we now think WE are the wrongdoers for asking questions and we are shocked when one of us does so, is something utterly new. It's what happens in countries ruled by dictators. In the past, Presidents had to just put up with it-they could choose how to respond to it, ignore it, whatever. But they couldn't prevent the climate of watchfulness and inquiry from prevailing. It is what has made crimes and abuses of power eventually come to light in this country, even decades later. But the way things are now, I don't think any abuser of pwer of any party will ever be stopped.

It is a question of the people having any role at all in the outcome of their society, and if we have to operate in a country of "free speech zones" and where leaders do not even like to be within bullhorn speaking distance of their people, what hope do we have?
In this instance, trusting that someday things will get better and someday we'll have access to our leaders again and thus regain say in their decisions they take with our lives, is a foolish belief. In fact, it is dangerous. The longer we encourage and tolerate this behavior, the more dangerous it is.

I say this for domestic situations. But I hope that at least Bono is aware of the dicotomy.
Teta040 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 04:21 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:21 PM
^
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:16 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Sorry if I have some doubts that George W. Bush can create a conspiracy.
But, you know, that was all part of the plan. Let's act Bush as being totally stupid for thirty years of his life, and introduce Cheney and Rumsfeld as two other nuts in order to make the public believe these people can't keep anything secret for long.

Everything is part of the plan, even that we write about it here. Everything.



__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×