Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

August 16, 2014
In today's show we bring you a round up of major news stories from around the globe, with an added twist of TNRA perspective and analysis. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Khalid Sheik Mohammed makes first court appearence

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.smh.com.au/news...2008/06/06/1212259043000.html


Does my nose look big in this? … Janet Hamlin's courtroom sketch of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and, left, the FBI photo of Mohammed after his capture in Pakistan in 2003.William Glaberson in Guantanamo Bay
June 7, 2008

WHEN at last he got the chance to speak, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, called President George Bush a crusader and ridiculed the Guantanamo trial system as an inquisition.

Mohammed, the former senior al-Qaeda operations chief, said he would represent himself and dared the tribunal to put him to death.

"This is what I want," he told a military judge in his first appearance to answer war crimes charges for the terrorism attacks that killed 2973 people and set America on a path to war.

"I'm looking to be martyr for long time," he said in serviceable English, improved, perhaps, by five years of custody, including three in secret CIA prisons.

The arraignment on Thursday of Mohammed and four other detainees the US Government says were high-level co-ordinators of the September 11 attacks was the start of hearings in the case, which is the centrepiece of the Bush Administration's war crimes system.

But it was also the first public appearance by Mohammed, who has long cast himself in the role of super-terrorist, claiming credit in the past not only for the 2001 plot, but for about 30 others, including the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan.

Mohammed worked to get as much control as possible over the proceedings. Peering through big, black-rimmed glasses and sporting a bushy grey beard, he rejected US lawyers as agents of the Bush Administration's "crusade war against Islamic world," saying he would represent himself. He said the lawyers could stay to help him as advisers.

By day's end, each of Mohammed's four co-defendants had said he wanted to represent himself. That could turn the trial into a jumble of rhetoric and a new opportunity for critics to attack the Guantanamo system as designed to get easy convictions.

The judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, agreed to permit three of the men to represent themselves. But in the case of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was to have been one of the hijackers, he said he wanted to further investigate a report from a military lawyer that Binalshibh has been on psychotropic medication.

When Colonel Kohlmann asked Binalshibh why he was taking the medication, security officials cut the sound fed to reporters in a glassed-in gallery and a media centre. It was one of several times when a national security consultant cut the sound when detainees appeared to be discussing what several of them said had been years of torture.

Mohammed managed to get the reference through the censor twice. "After torturing" he said, "they transfer us to Inquisition land in Guantanamo."

CIA officials have said that Mohammed was one of three detainees subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Mohammed looked lean compared with the photo taken of him after his 2003 capture. He chanted verses in Arabic and then translated them into English, and he vied with Colonel Kohlmann for control of the courtroom.

All five accused men were held in the secret CIA program and transferred to Guantanamo to face charges in the military commission system.

The New York Times


Free Bees - 9/11’s a Lie (Stayin’ Alive)

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdnq6IWWSA

 

The 'Free Bees' are looking for help in spreading their '9/11's a lie' music video and song far and wide. Reluctantly they have decided that even though they're extremely proud of the work, they are releasing it anonymously.

They believe that this music video has the potential to reach a large audience and as a work of infotainment is amusing, informative and thought provoking.

Regardless of your personal music taste please help spread this music video and song around.

Find us on:
www.myspace.com/free_bees
www.myspace.com/officialfreebees

LYRICS:

Well you can tell
By the way the buildings fell
There was something wrong
Now it's time to tell
Spread the word it's nothing new
You've gotta educate yourself in truth
Well it's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
We can help you understand
The New York Times effect on man

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

Well we can't give in we can't let go
If we wanna see some justice flow
It's time for us to make a stand
And together we can end this plan
It's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
The wars they fight, just ain't right
I don't know how they sleep at night

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

We're getting stronger
Won't take much longer
The truth will set us free
Let's break our silence
No need for violence
Become the change we want to see
9/11 was an inside job
9/11 was an inside job

We need a peaceful revolution
We need to know we have a choice
We've let them get away with murder
It's time for us to find our voice

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah


TNRA 06 June 2008

June 6, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2

Categories: [ Australia ]

Tonight's show leads with the breaking story of the Australian government's plan to form an Asian Union. We discuss the implications of such a development for our national sovereignty and civil rights.

The top-down, autocratic approach to the creation of an Asian Union has similarities with the North American Union, as outlined in the following excerpt from the film Zeitgeist:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

In the second part of the show we discuss the recent publication by the ABC of an article by Hereward Fenton, "9/11 Unanswered Questions". The article received a deluge of mostly positive comment until it was arbitrarily closed for comment after just two days, amid claims that the article was the subject of a "campaign". The article was followed by two rebuttal pieces, which are analysed in this edition of TNRA: Conspiracy Theory Lunacy by Hugh Tobin, and The Philosophy of Conspiracy by David Coady. The language and tone of these articles is deconstructed.

After the break we take look at the global food crisis, and Josh Jackson gives us his analysis of the way in which the crisis has been artificially created and manipulated.

In the final segment we return to examine the ABC - this time in regard to a controversy over a childrens' game, The Planet Slayer, which uses gruesome imagery and death threats to hype the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

The game begins with the cheery message: "Find out when you should die".

ABC tells children when to die

On the next screen the kids are greeted with "how big a a greenhouse pig are you?" and told to click on a skull and cross-bones to find out when they should die so as not to use more than their fair share of Earth's resources:

How big a greenhouse pig are you?

We take good long look at the psychology behind this game, which has suddenly sparked interest from the media and questions in the Senate.

Please leave us a comment and stay tuned for more shows.

Aimee Allen’s *Unofficial* Ron Paul Revolution Video

08 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCKMTo210k

 

see also:


Singer & Songwriter Aimee Allen on the Alex Jones Show

Aimee Allen: Revolution Video (2002) Blocked by US Government



from Aimee Allen:

 

Contact Aimee Allen: www.myspace.com/aimeeallen

I'm putting the "unofficial video" up on my page in honor of the cause...and due to popular demand.

I've tried and failed to get it removed from the internet because the director and myself and all the people involved including the editor were not even close to having it completed.


I want to have the credits up and the thank you's because the person that stole this footage and leaked it didn't have the courtesy to do so.


Full Brief of Evidence in Relation to War Crimes Allegations against the former Australian Prime Min

06 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

To download the full brief, click here.
website: www.iccaction.com
contact: Glenn Floyd (http://floydaubrey.com)

The Prosecutor Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
The International Criminal Court,
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague,
The Netherlands

Re: War Crimes Allegations: Introduction

4 June 2008

Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, this ‘Brief Of Evidence’ is furnished for your further consideration under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part IV, Article 42, 1, http://www.un.org/icc/part4.htm  as persuasive, relevant substantiated evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed as defined within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, those war crimes are alleged as committed by the unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq. Specific war crimes alleged are the loss of life and injury to Iraqi civilians detailed herein and on public record, and damage to civilian objects and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment of Iraq. The alleged war crimes identified directly arise from the self titled ‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’ excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq as its optional but direct response choice; to its untested assertions of the republic of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s).

The submission is forwarded for your examination in support of specific and articulable facts and inferences that John Winston Howard Of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065, in respect of his express personal, executive order to commit Australian Defence Forces in direct support of the armed attack and invasion of Iraq; on and after 20 March 2003, caused significant deaths and injury to Iraqi civilians and widespread destruction of property and the natural environment of Iraq. It is therefore stated, that by this express personal executive decision and action, John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes by ‘the conduct’ of such an ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ armed attack and invasion. The allegation is made that the ‘excessively lethal’ nature, and the unwarranted ‘conduct itself’, of this armed attack and invasion upon Iraq; is a commission of war crimes.

In alleging the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal nature’ of the armed attack and invasion is in itself ‘criminal conduct’, it is stated it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Accordingly, ‘during this unwarranted and excessively lethal action’; John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

The case and evidence herein presented, relies on the claim at international law under the provisions of this statute; the ‘actual conduct’ of the action itself, as a reasonable option, is alleged as ‘criminal conduct’. That is to say, the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal conduct itself’ of such an attack by way of its questionable necessity, reasonableness, severity and impact, violated the ICC Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv).

The violation is alleged because the clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal decision and conduct was applied when Iraq had both declared it had no WMD’s and in good faith, to prove the facts of these untested assertions of possessing WMD’s, Iraq lawfully complied with the existing Security Council Resolution 1441(2002) inspections measures to prove the factuality of both this untested assertion and Iraq’s lawful declaration. In addition, Iraq being a totally economically and militarily broken country since the 1991 Gulf War; was not capable of disobeying any directives of the U.N. Security Council. It lawfully complied as obliged and as demanded.

Iraq’s non-functioning economy was ruined after its military collapse since the 1991 Gulf War, when a massive coalition force of 38 countries delivered the absolute destruction of Iraq, where only one hundred hours after the Gulf War ground campaign started, President Bush fulfilling U.N. Resolutions declared "Kuwait is liberated" and Iraq's army defeated” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9D0CE0DB1638F93BA15751C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
 . In this major military exercise 11 of Iraq's 26 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed and damaged, causing electricity production collapse to four percent capacity. Infrastructure was almost non-existent with the destruction of the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and sewerage treatment plants, which all turned Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward, where telecoms equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, roads, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. In addition, the parlous state of the entire societal workings of the Iraq republic at all levels was evident, and brought to further draconian collapse by the effective authorised U.N. economic sanctions, operating for over the following 12 years.

Iraq was utterly broken as a nation and Iraq lawfully declared it had no WMD’s as demanded by the U.N., further, the untested assertions of Iraq possessing WMD’s was being fully proven out by Security Council enforced authorised inspections Iraq had lawfully complied with. There was no case whatsoever for such a clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion, this conduct was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. (See definitions of ‘Excessive’ pp12 to 13).

WAR CRIMES VIOLATIONS DEFINED.

War crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

relevant statute ‘explicitly and clearly states’ a war crimes violation occurs when:

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: Inter alia,

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the

Established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Although the specific and articulable facts and inferences herein also presents compelling evidence that the decision and action are in themselves both unlawful and illegal, the case and evidence presented, does not rely ‘on the unlawfulness and illegality of the decision to commit an armed attack and invasion of Iraq’, nor does it rely on the ‘unlawfulness and illegality of the action of actually committing or assisting to commit the armed attack and invasion of Iraq’. Those matters of decision and action, although clearly unlawful and illegal, do not constitute material evidence of fact or commission of war crimes within the ICC jurisdiction, as it is understood the ICC has no powers to investigate lawfulness or illegality of any military actions within the provisions of The Rome Statute.

It is the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this attack and invasion defined under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv), which is the subject of war crimes allegations. However, the ‘unlawfulness and illegality’ of both the decision and action, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘excessive’ as ‘reasonable conduct’, when considering the potential impact of available options in achieving the stated aim of ‘proving the facts’ of untested assertions of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. Consequently, the ‘unlawfulness’ has compelling direct bearing on the ‘excessiveness’ of the conduct itself of the attack and invasion; as it ‘utterly removes all grounds’ for any level of military action whatsoever, being justified in any way.

ARMED ATTACK AND INVASION AS A REASONABLE CONDUCT OPTION:

This Brief Of Evidence therefore, fully demonstrates, the ‘entire conduct itself’ of this unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq ‘as reasonable conduct’ under the circumstances was ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’. This allegation relies on the fact that the self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ forces’ openly stated rationale for attack and invasion was its untested assertion that ‘Iraq actually possessed WMD’s.

However, this matter of ‘determining the facts of the existence’ of WMD’s as asserted, was ALREADY being fully managed ‘as reasonable conduct’ by the Security Council itself. This ‘reasonable conduct’ would have reasonably and fully tested at law, the facts of this WMD’s untested assertion, without any death, injury or destruction whatsoever.

In reasonably managing this most serious matter, the Security Council being the duly recognised authority itself, in also considering this potential attack and invasion path as a possible conduct option available, (with its intrinsic ‘excessively lethal impact’), chose to not attack, and instead used its powers and functions appropriately as ‘reasonable conduct’, to manage the risks of ‘untested assertions’ of WMD’s. The Security Council formally warned Iraq of serious consequences and not only gave Iraq the chance to comply with its warning to prove the untested WMD’S assertion, it actually forced Iraq into full compliance with the agreed WMD’s inspections testing regime. It therefore acted reasonably within the binding obligations of the war crimes Article 8, 2, (b), (iv) provisions; the untested WMD’S assertion was being legitimately and fully proven without risk and without an excessively lethal attack and invasion.

LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO MANAGE THE IRAQ MATTER

Only the Security Council had the lawful authority at international law to manage this ‘untested assertion’ of WMD’s and it reasonably chose this balanced ‘non lethal’ option by ‘proving the facts’ of the WMD untested assertion through inspections testing, without applying criminal conduct of an excessively lethal armed attack and invasion. It chose this reasonable path because it felt ‘proving the facts of asserted WMD’s through such a use of excessively lethal force; clearly, was not warranted. This was a deliberate, lawful, strong, effective, balanced and humanitarian decision.

Therefore, at law, given the object of Resolution 1441 to test the assertions of WMD’s and the consequential death, injury and destruction resulting from an attack and invasion; the duly authorised authority decided armed attack and invasion would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. The self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ however, with no authority to do so, by their decision and action have chosen and executed, the unwarranted and excessively lethal option of armed attack and invasion; alleged as criminal conduct resulting in war crimes.

Deaths and injuries to civilians and and widespread destruction of property resulting from the armed attack and invasion of Iraq are widely identified in the public domain and are specifically identified in this Brief Of Evidence. Accordingly, it is requested your office examines these claims and evidence under PART 2.  JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 15 (2) and further considers under Article 15, (3) http://www.un.org/icc/part2.htm, John Winston Howard’s alleged criminal culpability for indictment and criminal prosecution.

If your analysis of this Brief Of Evidence conforms with the view that a prima facie case of war crimes (identified in this Brief Of Evidence and elsewhere), exists as alleged and it is concluded that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, it is requested you submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber; a request for authorization of an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

http://www.icc-
cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rules_of_procedure_and_Evidence_English.pdf
.

It is further requested therefore, if such investigations consequently accord with these allegations of war crimes made herein, John Winston Howard be indicted under Article 21,1 (b) seeking invocation of appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict for war crimes violations specified for prosecution for war crimes.

MATTERS OF *’UNLAWFULNESS AND ILLEGALITY’ SUBSTANTIVE TO DEFINING ‘EXCESSIVELY’ LETHAL BY UNWARRANTED ACTION:

It is previously stated the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this armed attack and invasion which is the subject of war crimes allegations. The unlawfulness and illegality of both the decision and action however, although not falling within the ICC war crimes jurisdiction, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘unwarranted’ as reasonable conduct (and therefore in this context, also excessive), in the total set of prevailing circumstances. This analysis is helpful in defining the use of the term ‘excessive’ when considering appropriate and reasonable options of conduct and the potential impact of all available options in achieving the stated aim of proving the facts of untested assertions of the existence of WMD in Iraq.

This focus is valuable because there are a wide ranging set of circumstances surrounding any behaviour in legal cases under analysis and many of them whilst not legally impinging upon defining criminality of actual decisions and actions of the case, have a direct bearing upon clear analysis of what is ‘reasonable behaviour’ (i.e. excessive behaviour), expected or obliged at law, in relation to the decisions and actions actually taken and acted upon.

There are two sides to analysis and determination of any war crimes committed under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). They are the absolute severity of the impact of the action which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated and there is also the legal, practical and ‘moral imperatives’ which are operating. These are the factors in an enlightened society at play of the pure compelling reasons to do or not do something which has a severe impact. They consequently may be defined ‘excessive’ –simply because they are breaches of these accepted or binding imperatives and consequently affirm behaviour as unnecessary or unwarranted ‘under these specific circumstances’ and not so in others.

*A separate case is under preparation alleging the attack and invasion of Iraq is unlawful and illegal and ipso facto,

premeditated criminal conduct and/or criminal negligence.

This focus looks at any morays, ethics, values, laws, statutes, norms of behaviour that we all understand and accept as forming or defining ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour. Such focus is material to the specific facts of the case itself because it shows by certain agreed societal operands we are clearly aware of, that such behaviour is clearly excessive, unnecessary and/or unwarranted etc. If the decision and action taken was also known to be unlawful, illegal and is wholly premeditated, this provides further strong evidence the decision was unwarranted, unnecessary as well as excessively lethal. The unlawfulness and illegality of such behaviour cannot at the ICC define war crimes, however the unlawfulness compounds the actual decision and action as irrefutable evidence the premeditated behaviour was fully understood as ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour at law. It therefore displays full knowledge of excessive impact ‘and under these circumstances’ shows behaviour as war crimes, because the action or ‘conduct’ clearly shows at law, in attack, ‘any’ military advantage is non-existent.

 

continued...

Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment

04 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

ABC News

Posted Mon Jun 2, 2008 1:17pm AEST
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2262414.htm 

 

A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.

 

A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.

 

Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.

 

"We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard's actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute," he said.

 

Democrats Senator Lyn Allison says the legal brief sent to the ICC is justified.

Senator Allison, who is one of several eminent people supporting the move, says accountability is important.

 

"This action has been taken to hold those accountable for their action, so it's essentially our prime minister - he was the one at the time [who] was the executive of government, made the decision," she said.

 

'It wasn't put to the Parliament and as we all know, it turned out to be unjustified."

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.

 

Corrs Guitarist - “9/11 was an inside job”

01 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Each time a major entertainer steps out on the side of 9/11 truth there is ripple in the media blackout. Jim Corr is clearly very committed, and we can expect more ripples to come.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfszpqq2o4


By Richie Taylor
Friday May 30 2008

www.independent.ie/national-news/corr-brother-says-911-an-inside-job-1391867.html


CORRS guitarist Jim Corr has claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 attacks in America were carried out by "rogue elements" of US President George Bush's "neo-con administration".


In a rare intervention into the political arena, the male singer with The Corrs band came out against the Lisbon Treaty claiming that it is "tip-toe totalitarianism in the West".

In an interview with Matt Cooper on Today FM's 'Last Word', Corr made the case for voting 'No' to Lisbon, claiming it could introduce the death penalty to Ireland and contribute to a "new world order".

Corr's opposition is based on his three years "studying the New World Order which the European Union is a part of".

He said "the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union". The Lisbon Treaty itself will introduce "a scientific technocracy" to Europe which will erode national sovereignty.

Corr claimed that The Charter of Fundamental Rights allows for the introduction of the death penalty.

"It makes provision for the introduction to law for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war.

"What we are seeing is tip-toe totalitarianism in the West with 9/11 the key to understanding this.

"When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent... it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."

Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".

The Philosophy of Conspiracy - by David Coady

23 May 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2251734.htm


From the ABC:


In our final installment on conspiracy theories, David Coady looks at the philosophy of conspiracy...

 

22 May 2008, 10:00

 

David Coady

People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". They typically respond by saying that there's nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, since, after all, conspiracies do happen. This is a reasonable response.

But a little reflection reveals the expressions "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" do not deserve their bad reputation.

After all, "a conspiracy" is simply a secret plan by a group of people to bring about some shared goal, "a conspiracy theory" is just a theory according to which such a plan has occurred or is occurring, and "a conspiracy theorist" is just a person who is disposed to believe conspiracy theories.

Most people can cite numerous examples of conspiracies from history books, the media, or their own personal experience. Hence most people believe numerous conspiracy theories, and so are, to one degree or another, conspiracy theorists.

But very few people would actually describe themselves as conspiracy theorists, nor would they describe any of the things they believe as conspiracy theories.

When asked to identify examples of conspiracy theories most people immediately think of theories that are clearly irrational.

Some will refer to theories involving conspirators who are virtually all-powerful or omniscient. Others will mention theories involving alleged conspiracies that have been going on for so long or which involve so many people that it would implausible to suppose that they could have remained undetected. Others cite theories involving conspirators who appear to have no motive to conspire - unless perhaps the desire to do evil for its own sake can be thought of as a motive. The theory that the United States' government planned the September 11th attacks appears to be irrational in each of these ways.

This theory, and others like it, are irrational conspiracy theories, but it does not follow, and it is not true, that they are irrational because they are conspiracy theories.

Thinking of such irrational theories as paradigms of conspiracy theories is like thinking of numerology as a paradigm of number theory, or astrology as a paradigm of a theory of planetary motion. The subject matter of a theory does not generally determine whether belief in it is rational or not.

But conspiracies not only exist, they are widespread. Most people conspire some of the time (think of the things we tell our children about Santa Claus) and some people conspire most of the time (think of the intelligence organizations of any country).

Furthermore, many events cannot be explained without appealing to a conspiracy. The only question in such cases is "Which conspiracy theory is correct?"

In the case of 9/11 the question is "Who are the conspirators, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, or George Bush and the American security services?" The correct answer to this question is so well established by now that nothing further I can say here could be expected to convince the 9/11 truthers.

The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory (a theory which happens, like its true rival, to be a conspiracy theory).

Of course it seems strange to think of the "official" explanation of 9/11 (or the official explanation of any event) as a conspiracy theory. We are accustomed to contrasting conspiracy theories with the official non-conspiratorial version of events, but quite often, the official version of events is just as conspiratorial as its rivals.

When this is the case, it is the rivals to the official version of events that are inevitably labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theories". So, "conspiracy theory" has come to refer to virtually any belief which conflicts with an official version of events.

It should be clear what is wrong with using the expression in this way. It allows politicians, bureaucrats, and more generally defenders of officialdom the world over to abuse and ridicule anyone who doubts their truthfulness.

Yet it is vital to any open society that there are respected sources of information which are independent of official sources, and which can freely contradict them and not be dismissed without argument. The widespread view that conspiracy theories are always, or even typically, irrational is not only itself irrational, it is dangerous.

It promotes complacency in the face of official or institutionally endorsed versions of events, which makes it easier for conspirators in positions of power to remain undetected.

I am not denying that there are people who have an irrational tendency to see conspiracies everywhere. And we could restrict the expression "conspiracy theorist" in such a way that it only referred to such people.

But if we do this, we should also remember that there is another widespread form of irrationality, namely the failure to believe in conspiracy even when confronted with powerful evidence for it.

We need a name for people who irrationally reject evidence of conspiracy, to give our political discourse some much needed balance. The expression "coincidence theorist", which has gained some currency on the Internet, goes some way to meeting this need.

A coincidence theorist fails to connect the dots, no matter how suggestive of an underlying pattern they are.

A hardened coincidence theorist can watch a plane crash into the second tower of the World Trade Centre without thinking that there is any connection between this event and the plane which crashed into the other tower less than an hour earlier.

Similarly, a coincidence theorist could be aware that all 175 editors of Rupert Murdoch's publications around the world endorsed the invasion of Iraq, without seeing any connection between their expressed views and those of their boss.

Coincidence theorists are just as irrational and at least as widespread as conspiracy theorists. They are equally prone to error, though their errors are of different and opposing kinds. The errors of the conspiracy theorist, however, tend to be less dangerous than the errors of the coincidence theorist.

The conspiracy theorist usually only harms himself. The coincidence theorist can harm us all by making it easier for those in power to conceal their conspiratorial machinations.


Page 91 of 106 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Wayne Hall said:

“I have spent several days together with Michael Murphy [...]. M. Murphy is an honest person.”

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Was it his firm handshake? Did he give you a warm, open look straight into your eyes?

Sorry, it’s hard not to be cynical when it comes to MJM, the guy who does not have any occupation other than making money off the chemtrail hoax. He is known to delete posts from his web site that question his “facts”. He never even discussed factual arguments against the claims in his “documentary” film.

But foremost, he is the one who spread widely the claim that “normal contrails don’t persist”. From your point of view, you should reprimand him for bringing the “contrails vs. chemtrails” issue to the center of the discussion. Do you?

By Josh on 2012 07 30 - 19:29:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

you will be surprised what marks the telephoto camera will reveal on your “unmarked” planes. By all means, go ahead with that process.

I’m also interested to learn about your method of determining the altitude of a plane from the ground.

By Josh on 2012 07 30 - 19:12:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We are in the process of getting a super telephoto lens on a camera with tripod to “shoot” the aircraft which we believe are spraying chemicals. A contact in North West NSW telephoned two days ago to report an unmarked Boeing 737 spraying not above 15,000 ft AMSL (approximately). We are also planning to use a suitable aircraft to get closer to photograph a suspect aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed, although not from commercial aircraft.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 07 30 - 17:30:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, your response in great detail did not address the question. Rosalind asserts that after 10 years of research she has no evidence of anything being emitting from aircraft exhausts apart from normal jet emissions.

What do you say to that?

Leonard, thank you for the input. I tend to agree but will continue to offer my advice to the group, for as long as it wants it. Already to day we had one member of the group espouse how desirable it would be to shoot down five “chemtrail” aircraft. How he would determine which aircraft is a “chemtrail” aircraft was not canvassed but if the selection method was based on whether or not it emitted a persistent contrail, then I believe there is genuine cause for alarm.

Wayne, as you have met MJM, can I ask how he makes his living? Genuine question.

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 16:49:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Robert Forgettes lawsuit!

This is only a red herring and if I am able to locate the court where this is supposed to be heard I will contact the court as Amicus Curiae because it is a frivolous, vexatious, malicious abuse of court process as it is clear that the litigants propose to contend nonsense and then offer a weak case to have their action defeated. Courts do not like being used for political purposes.
Leonard Clampett - Attorney.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 07 30 - 16:20:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, I don’t know. Like a lot of things with climate science, it is debatable.

So you don’t know the answer to my questions and I don’t know the answer to your questions. 

As far as Phillip Ridley is concerned, anyone who quotes Michael J Murphy’s “What in the world are they spraying” as a “documentary”, obviously hasn’t done any research on the man or his methods. MJM was asked to join the Robert Forgettes lawsuit and has declined. One wonders why..?

I have spent several days together with Michael Murphy, in Ghent in Belgium, where Peter Vereecke was hosting us. M. Murphy is an honest person. You are the one who is cynical, it seems, about Murphy and more generally. I myself would not devote time or energy to supporting an American legal challenge on the subject of chemtrails, but I wish Robert Forgette well.

I would like to see you, as an active supporter of Robert Forgette, keeping us better informed on how things are developing with him and his case.

Robert Forgette is attending the “Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails” conference so Mike Murphy’s declining to support his lawsuit does not seem to have damaged relations between them.

Is it too cynical to suggest that the last thing he would want, after charging $100 dollars apiece for his latest epic, “Why in the World are they Spraying?” is for the case to be settled in a court of law and the gravy train to end?

Yes it is. Hideously so. I do not like being required to remain polite when exposed to such attitudes.

Wayne, I assume you are familiar with Rosalind Peterson.. the high priestess of the Chemtrail movement? What are your thoughts on her latest pronouncement with regards to chemtrails?

Rosalind Peterson was mentioned by Josh a couple of weeks ago and I responded in great detail. I thought you were following this thread.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 15:49:33
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne, I don’t know. Like a lot of things with climate science, it is debatable.

As far as Phillip Ridley is concerned, anyone who quotes Michael J Murphy’s “What in the world are they spraying” as a “documentary”, obviously hasn’t done any research on the man or his methods. MJM was asked to join the Robert Forgettes lawsuit and has declined. One wonders why..?

Is it too cynical to suggest that the last thing he would want, after charging $100 dollars apiece for his latest epic, “Why in the World are they Spraying?” is for the case to be settled in a court of law and the gravy train to end?

Wayne, I assume you are familiar with Rosalind Peterson.. the high priestess of the Chemtrail movement? What are your thoughts on her latest pronouncement with regards to chemtrails?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 15:23:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard, I am sorry.  I see that it was Skywatcher who brought us back to this topic.

By all means continue the discussion with Mike if you feel it can help.

I would be curious to know what Mike thinks on the subject of why geoengineers advocate using aircraft contrails to mitigate global warming if they actually exacerbate global warming, as claimed by the EU and former Environment Commissioner Dimas, who extended the Emissions Trading scheme to cover aviation.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 14:15:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard when you see that even such a powerful and comprehensive article as Philip Ridley’s has no effect on the mindset of Hereward Fenton and Mike Glynn, what makes you think that resumption of the dialogue of the deaf on their favourite subject of contrails vs chemtrails is going to help you change their minds on the more important matter of whether this planet and the life forms on it are being illegally sprayed and poisoned?

Or is that NOT the most important, for you?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 30 - 14:07:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Now can anyone explain to me why this aircraft would be Chemtrailing on takeoff?

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 30 - 13:43:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories