How YOU Have Made A Difference

I was on a trawling mission (just surfing and looking at stuff) when I came across a quite strange (to me) Dept Of State page.

Many of you have probably seen it before, here and have read it.

Now whilst I was reading the page, something occurred to me:
The government is so bothered by conspiracy sites and theories that they have devoted time, money and resources setting up a part of an information site specifically to try and debunk ALL CTs

It appears to be specifically aimed at journalists and attempts to tell them how to spot a CT and/or misinfo.

Is this an attempt to spin any CT's into obscurity and away from the public gaze?

Are the government so worried by CTs that they feel they MUST respond with their own disinfo?

The stories they highlight are long on propaganda, short on verifiable neutral verification.

They also attempt to tie CTers in with communists, in a quite blatant attempt to discredit ALL CTs, which I find quite pitifull considering the state of "communism" in the world.
It smacks a little of the McCarthy witch hunts and plays on peoples "fear" of communism - which has never been much of a threat in reality, if we'd have just left them alone.

This seems to me to be an admission, of sorts, that there are CTs which hold more than a grain of truth, and they're trying to get journo's on their side by basically labelling them all as fakes.

I would ask that if the CTs are so much rubbish (as they are trying to say) then why aren't they just ignoring them - why are the giving the existence of CTs "airtime"?

Well, it's because people are highly dis-satisfied with official lies, cover-ups and generally being treated like serfs, but because some people refuse to accept this, we have seen the rise of the alt. media and sites like ATS which have and continue to, debunk the debunkers.

Absolutely true, if you dig deep enough.

How Will YOU Exercise "Freedom"?

Unfortunately, most Americans seem content to willfully believe lies to support their comfort zone. They're too afraid to confront the reality of what's right in front of their faces.

Here's one person's ideas, how to make a difference.

I must say that I'm kinda disappointed...

There are many conspiracy theory websites, which contain a great deal of unreliable information. Examples include:

* Rense.com
* Australian “private investigator” Joe Vialls, who died in 2005
* Conspiracy Planet

Where are we? LOL

Are they therefore saying that we contain a great deal of RELIABLE information????

We must up our game, friends...

Nice call, Budski, hadn't seen that before.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by more_serotonin_pls]

I have made a difference by questioning authority and by being an open minded skeptic. Also, I make a conscious choice to be wary of indulging in fear. I make an effort to look at both sides.

My favourite bits:
at the top of the page;

How can a journalist or a news consumer tell if a story is true or false? There are no exact rules, but the following clues can help indicate if a story or allegation is true.

* Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?
* Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”
* Does the story contain a shocking revelation about a highly controversial issue?
* Is the source trustworthy?
* What does further research tell you?

Then at the bottom of the page;

The researcher was also able to find weblog entries (numbered 100 and 333, on June 26 and July 15, 2005) from the commanding officer of the platoon that was involved in the incident and another member of his platoon. The weblog entries made it clear that:

* the teenaged Iraqi boys were armed insurgents;
* after the firefight between U.S. troops and the insurgents was over, the dead, wounded and captured insurgents were initially photographed separated from their weapons because the first priority was to make sure that it was impossible for any of the surviving insurgents to fire them again;
* following medical treatment for the wounded insurgents, they were photographed with the captured weapons displayed, in line with Iraqi government requirements;
* the insurgents were hiding in a dense palm grove, where visibility was limited to 20 meters, not a likely place for a football game, and they were seen carrying the RPGs on their shoulders.

So according to this page, an accused soldiers weblog is held to be a reliable source of information.

No conflict of interest there then, because of COURSE, governments and their employees NEVER lie.

Didn't you know the government never lies?

They never make mistakes either you know?

:-)

Are you kidding? I wonder if they ever tell the truth at all. Maybe that's because my parents argue all the time about what is true and what is not true.

Listening to it all is like your brain spinning around in a blender like they can't agree about the time of day even.