It is well known phenomenon now a days, every other argument is called/labeled as conspiracy theory… i just want to know what is conspiracy theory to start with
if American Govt/ Western Media says that Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and present no prove to back the claim then it is a fact, and anyone not believing it or asking for to proof it is known as dumb fool who knows nothing…
1.a) If some other entity, other than American Govt/Western Media says that Osama is not responsible and present some logical argument to back it up, it is called Conspiracy theory???
If American Govt/Western Media says there are Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq and comes out with some rough/blur/vague images to support their claim, then it is a fact
2.a) if somebody counter that argument and says that there is no WMDs in Iraq, then it is Conspiracy theory…
If American Govt/Western Media says that Osama and Mulla Omer are in Quetta/Pakistan, then it is a fact
3.a) if somebody counter it or asks for the proves then it is called conspiracy theory
If American Govt/Western Media says that they are supporting Pakistan and have nothing to do with the terrorist organization in Pakistan, then it is a fact
4.a) however, if their agents get caught red-handed, with proven contacts with the terrorists, making movies of strategic and sensitive locations, then it is conspiracy theory
and list is long, how to differ fact which is stated by the American Govt / Western Media from the ground realities, most often known as Conspiracy theories???
^^ what proven, any thing USA have said is still not proved... but for some reason, they are called fact and not conspiracy theories, i am looking for that reason???
I’ll concern myself with (1) since that is the oldest and most commonly trotted out one.
There is a lot of proof for how the 9/11 attacks happened. People who proclaim Osama’s innocence also typically have alternative theories on how the buildings were brought down. Such theories have been addressed in peer-reviewed scientific papers relating to mechanical engineering. If the innocent proclaimers proclaim innocence in the face of scientific evidence theres the crackpot element there. The innocence of Osama also requires disbelief in some of the admissions of guilt purported to come from Bin Laden, such as
The usual response is that these audio/video tapes, typically played at al-jazeera or some other arabic channel, are fakes. It is impossible to predict what will be regarded as a fake by such people, unless the content of the message is known to conflict or corroborate their worldview. That is another hallmark of conspiracy theorists.
^^ Not here to discuss any of these theories, just for your info, the counter arguments have valid and better points, backed by laws of physics, whereas all your posted stuff is hearsay...
the point to be discussed here, why when an allegation made by USA/Western media without any prove is considered a fact??? i am just looking forward to know the reason and not some old ranting that how Osama bin Laden transported tons of TNT on the US planes, fooling all the machines and personnel..
^ who alleges that anyone transported tons of TNT?
See anyone can talk about laws of physics. Its another matter to actually present your ideas before a scientific audience and publish them in scientific papers. See for example these:
Now sure if you want to be skeptical of the media do so. In this case there is evidence, yet it is dismissed solely because it conflicts with the theory on the basis that all the sources of evidence, Al-Jazeera, western media, scientific community are conspiring together.
Another hallmark of conspiracy theories is that limited evidence, for instance in the Raymond Davis case, of him allegedly having contact with TTP or americans are caught photographing installations are taken to support a much bigger claim e.g. that CIA/Americans are masterminding TTP’s activities.
There we go, thats what defines a conspiracy theorist. Disregarding evidence, claiming that its about the media instead of logic and feeling victimized when his views are regarded as conspiracy theories.
sometimes conspiracy theories are created by nuts; but in some rare cases these nuts also use their devilish brain to create theories for agg*****zing themselves (zaid hamid is an example).
ps: why is it putting **** in the word agg*****zing?
There we go, thats what defines a conspiracy theorist. Disregarding evidence, claiming that its about the media instead of logic and feeling victimized when his views are regarded as conspiracy theories.
I agree, and you are doing the same... have red the topic and things to be discussed.... i would say if you understood it and still insist to discuss the conspiracy theories by themselves.. then be my guest.. i am not going to indulge myself in that discussion
sometimes conspiracy theories are created by nuts; but in some rare cases these nuts also use their devilish brain to create theories for agg*****zing themselves (zaid hamid is an example).
ps: why is it putting **** in the word agg*****zing?
Can be true, may be that is reason behind it.... i would personally never believe what ever Zaid Hamid would have to say... on the other side, the evidences are there against the claims which have brought wars to the countries like Iraq and have totally destroyed them.... these wars were there because the Genius people on the other side believed and spread the word that Iraq have weapon of Mass destruction which Iraqies are planning to launch against USA and its interests....against this, many lobbies around the world this war as War-for-Oil, War-on-Islam, War-Against-Muslims etc etc... each one said that there are no WMDs and later they were labelled as Conspiracy theory developer and NUTS... later they were right aren't they
( the reason i used Iraq example because the theory was there from both sides and out come is there as well)
Taking that example, So how do you differentiae between stupid mistakes (eg: Bush's claims of WMD) and more sinister designs that conspiracy theorists cook up?
I agree, and you are doing the same... have red the topic and things to be discussed.... i would say if you understood it and still insist to discuss the conspiracy theories by themselves.. then be my guest.. i am not going to indulge myself in that discussion
So you give these things as examples but dont want to discuss them. Well fine. The point is that there are often very good, logic based reasons to regard conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, and the refrain of 'its all western media' is a convenient excuse to avoid engaging with them.
one of the major victories of the US is that they have managed to paint talking against them as socially unacceptable behaviour. conspiracy theories are those which havent been admitted in the press yet. ike once upon a time iraq lies were a conspiracy theory but now it is fact.
Taking that example, So how do you differentiae between stupid mistakes (eg: Bush's claims of WMD) and more sinister designs that conspiracy theorists cook up?
bush's wmd claims were sinister. they knew fullwell the actual picture but lied to gain support
Taking that example, So how do you differentiae between stupid mistakes (eg: Bush's claims of WMD) and more sinister designs that conspiracy theorists cook up?
There was time when talking against the reasons of the war was called/labeled conspiracy theories, and american /western media version of the story was considered as undeniable fact... but now you are not alone to call it stupid mistake... it was not a mistake back then...
As Shardmany has mentioned, Western media/Americans have developed a mind frame where anyone talking against their any action or challenging any information produced by them is considered conspiracy theory???
So you give these things as examples but dont want to discuss them. Well fine. The point is that there are often very good, logic based reasons to regard conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, and the refrain of 'its all western media' is a convenient excuse to avoid engaging with them.
The only reason to give examples above is to make a point that, no matter what, both sides are unable to produce hard evidence to prove their point, Govt bodies/Media are coming out with reports and other parties are coming out with their arguments, but the factual information on the issue is still unknown...however, you may believe that the information provided by the govt/media on 9/11 for example is concrete and need no further evidence to prove that OBL was behind it, whereas the other side believes same about their side of the story... and eventually one is called conspiracy theory...
If you have noticed i have given the Iraq war example as well... we may have factual information on 9/11 etc but we do have undeniable evidences that the basis of Iraq war was false and the information/presentation and all the hype was all cooked up by Americans and western media.. i still recall those days as media use to label anything against the war of Iraq as conspiracy theory...and in the end it turned out that it was media and govts who were lying and so-called conspiracy theories were right....
The only reason to give examples above is to make a point that, no matter what, both sides are unable to produce hard evidence to prove their point, Govt bodies/Media are coming out with reports and other parties are coming out with their arguments, but the factual information on the issue is still unknown...however, you may believe that the information provided by the govt/media on 9/11 for example is concrete and need no further evidence to prove that OBL was behind it, whereas the other side believes same about their side of the story... and eventually one is called conspiracy theory...
This is why the examples I cited for the part that can be established scientifically were from scientific journals, not media or government. Unless you think scientists are in on it too of course.
[quote]
If you have noticed i have given the Iraq war example as well... we may have factual information on 9/11 etc but we do have undeniable evidences that the basis of Iraq war was false and the information/presentation and all the hype was all cooked up by Americans and western media.. i still recall those days as media use to label anything against the war of Iraq as conspiracy theory...and in the end it turned out that it was media and govts who were lying and so-called conspiracy theories were right....
[/QUOTE]
