It is a well-known fact that nothing makes a violent riot more peaceful than letting everyone have guns.
This is the sort of argument that makes opponents of gun control look just that little bit more non-reality-based.
This, without the “debate it gently” part. This seems like an excellent moment to teach your eight year old, by example, the fine art of conversation. Fights like these are perfectly fine for the bar, after a couple beers. Or for messageboards. Or for in the paper. They might be fine for the aftermath of Thanksgiving party, depending on how much the family will enjoy it and how well they can see it as sport it should be instead of something to metally split the family over in the sane kind and the other kind.
For a marriage, you will want to teach your kid that if such a subject can’t be factually debated, it needs to be seen for what it is (a belief that serves some other psychological purpose) which needs deflecting to keep the peace. Nothing beats a good "Really, dear?.. I’ll say!..Say, how was work today? … .
Then, when you are alone with your kid, you can teach him you views and how it is perfectly possible that yours are so different from his mothers. I’d be curious what your eight year olds opinion about it will be; at least it will be an interesting discussion with him.
I’m curious about the “non-Muslim” qualifier. I suggest that Muslims who live in the various Muslim republics might get some allowance, since these nations routinely have government-controlled media prone to censorship and propaganda.
A Muslim born and raised in a western democracy has no excuse.
Then that leaves only one other possibility: any other culprit, and those who believe that possibility are not morons.
You do understand that Israel is not synonymous with Jews.
Right?
Back to the question of advice for sweeteviljesus and handling his wife’s strange beliefs. Next time the topic comes up, tell her that you’re unconvinced, to put it mildly. Ask her about what convinced her, and whether she could convince you. Through this process, keep an open mind, and show it.
When she gives you an item of her evidence, do a deep-dive, and don’t allow the subject to change to a different item until you’ve come to a resolution of the first one. A resolution would be her admitting that this item doesn’t really offer a compelling piece of evidence (or, I guess, your admitting that it does).
After the first item is addressed, you should say that since that one really didn’t do it for you, she should probably go straight to the arguments for conspiracy that would be the most compelling, to save time.
CurtC, I might be sexist here, but a lot of women (especially the “I’m feeling things through with my female intuition rather then cold logic”-type ) would see this kind of debate as a cold, agressive and unfair treatment of their beliefs. They might counter it with an equally unfair defense: tears and storming out of the room.
To be fair, people who claim Israel was behind it are morons, too.
But some do posita global Jewish conspiracyrather than simply an international Israeli conspiracy. Even those who believe it was an Israeli conspiracy are, themselves, often willing to conflate Israel/Jews.
(And even an international Israeli conspiracy has echoes of classical anti-semitic tropes, in that our government would have to be essentially controlled by the Zionist state in order for that sort of thing to pass without remark, let alone retaliation). Especially when you add inthe Conspiracy Theory about the “dancing Israelis” and how they were ‘mysteriously’ let go by the FBI.
Not again… :o
Your link is only attempting to debunk (but, in my opinion, it rather states the obvious) the issue of foreknowledge. It’s essentially upgrading the story by an additional item (namely, foreknowledge) and then spends about 20 scrolls of the page to argue there was no foreknowledge. Duh! It’s not mentioned anywhere.
This particular link does not deny that at least two “dancers” where in fact Mossad agents. But I’m sure you do.
Let her know that all the conspiracy theories – 9/11, JFK, Apollo, fluoridated water, all of them – are really false-flag operations designed to keep the most intelligent, inquisitive people in the country from finding out the REAL truth about the BIGGEST conspiracy.
Sugarless gum!
If you say this with a straight face and she falls for it, encourage her to find the TRUTH behind the “truths”. Maybe she’ll find that the CTs are pure unripened BS. Or maybe she’ll keep quiet. Or maybe she’ll say “there isn’t any proof of that”, to which the CT reply is: “That’s what we’re supposed to believe.” Fight crazy belief with crazier, and invoke Poe’s Observation.
Feel free to be sure of whatever you’d like.
Of course, we’ve done this dance before and you’ve been called on the carpet to explicitly state exactly what your Just Asking Questions tactic is implying about the Mossad/Israel and 9/11. You never did, unless I miss my guess. For the same reason, now I remain more than a little skeptical that you will finally do so.
People on this board are used to JAQ’ing about 9/11. We know what it means and why it’s used, especially if the person JAQ’ing refuses to ever definitively state any claims. This is not our first rodeo.
If JAQ’ing is all you’ve got, your argument will be treated accordingly.
No, truthers are morons.
You’ve never been to the Middle East have you?
Beyond that, yes people who claim that Israel was behind it are anti-Semitic morons.
Sound like what the OP might have…
…with his wife…
… in bed, I mean…
[sub]nudge-nudge[/sub]
I merely made an observation on the content of the link you provided w.r.t. subject of “dancing Israelis”.
As for implications, they can be of any form possible but one will never know unless investigation is conducted. If there was an investigation that was carried out the way investigation in, say, whereabouts of various 9/11 suspects was done, I’d probably drop the subject. But, my understanding is, the investigation got abruptly stopped by White House at the time (2001/2002) and… well, that’s it.
I think it is perfectly valid and rational to point to questions unanswered because many people do not recall very well. It was briefly in the news and then never mentioned again.
So, for your recollection pleasure, this link is a transcript of Carl Cameron report on FOX News. My favourite tidbit is this:
HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9-11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?
CAMERON: It’s very explosive information, obviously, and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected — none of it necessarily conclusive. It’s more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.
The reason this is “conspiracy” is not that the whole story is made up with malicious intent but rather because even though the basis for investigation was there and initial facts gathered, the full investigation and reporting on it has been prevented.
I just want to make sure that the story itself did not come out of vacuum as you and others suggest.
Now, you can go back to your regularly scheduled Uninhibited Bashing of ‘em Faithfull Conspirators™ program.
As I said, I was not exactly expecting you to finally actually state what you’re hinting at. And as stated, nobody is going to be particularly moved by your JAQing.
And, of course, this is where the JAQ’ing dovetails with some even less savory nonsense, as it again implies (not, of course, that you’v come right out and said it) that the Mossad was in some way involved in 9/11 and instead of commenting on this fact or seeking retribution for it, the US instead bowed to foreign powers and instituted a coverup.
I’d ask again for you to actually, finally, clearly and explicitly state what you are implying, but there is a reason that JAQ’ing is a recognized phenomena, and a reason why it’s so very rarely abandoned by those who rely on it in lieu of rational, explicit discussion.
Speaking of recollection pleasure,you might recall where it was pointed out to you that after massive investigation, there was no reason to believe that the men had any connection with 9/11. Of course, as part of addressing your Conspiracy Theory, it should be stated that your claim that “the full investigation and reporting on it has been prevented” is fictional and contains yet another implication you most likely won’t explicitly voice as to just how “reporting” was “prevented”. Likewise, that implication is less than savory as it suggests that America’s free press is, likewise, controlled by foreign powers.
But as I said, this is not our first rodeo and I’d wager that there are very few of us who are particularly impressed with JAQ’ing, or who fail to recognize it for what it is.
Finn…you should cut him some slack. He’s ‘just asking questions’ here…
-XT
What would it even matter, if some of those guys had been undercover Mossad agents? I don’t get it. Unless there is some evidence that these guys had foreknowledge, there isn’t a link to the hijackings even if they were spies.
We can’t say whether or not it would matter, we can Just Ask Questions.
Here’s a point that you can bring up.
The Bush administration was obviously gung-ho to attack Iraq, and they were quite willing to use 9/11 as an excuse to do so.
So, if the story about the 15 hijackers was made up, why didn’t they claim that at least some or them were Iraqi?
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf
They framed the wrong freaking people!