Truthers v Birthers

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This may well start a shit-show. Not looking to, but I realize the potential.


So, I want to establish that it's a piss-poor analogy comparing the "Truther" movement with the "Birther" movement.

Now, some similarities exist, but there are some similarities between Nazis and Buddhists. Some similarities exist among just about any two groups.

So here's why I consider it to be a very poor analogy:

1) The "Truthers" are not strictly from one party. There were libertarian truthers who fell into a Ron Paul Republican party type. It may have been majority D's, but it wasn't an exclusive movement the way that the "Birthers" are. (Anyone care to wager how many Dems doubt Obama's birth certificate?)

2) There is obvious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 helped further the Neocon agenda. From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq (neither of which stood a chance of happening without a 9/11 type event) there was substantial political gain to be had from a large terrorist attack happening on US soil that came from the middle east.

3) While I am not here to suggest that the "Truthers" are correct, I am here to defend the idea that what happened on 9/11 is substantially more complicated than being born in Hawaii. The complications enable us to be confused as to what happened that day, and confusion breeds suspicion.

I am not a "truther" but I am one who has some confusion over what happened on Sept 11. Building 7 confuses me--as does the curiousness of the BBC reporting on Building 7 collapsing before it did (youtube video here)

Such confusion not withstanding, I am again not here to defend Truthers. I am here to establish that it is a poor analogy when we compare "Truthers" with "Birthers"

I mean, there's only one claim to the Birther movement--Obama was born outside of the US. But there's no confusion or complication on this; we have his birth certificate. End of debate.


So, can we please put that comparison to rest?

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Well, there's the video I linked to, for starters.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Steel framed buildings have never been destroyed by fire in all of human history.

Despite this, people think they can ignore the historical precedent and pretend office supplies and a little bit of diesel is sufficient enough to stand history on its head.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

There were a fair number of Hilary Clinton supporters that seemed to fall into the Birther camp back before the 2008 elections.

One could make a strong case that the Truther position is weaker than the Birther position precisely because of your points 2) and 3): faking birth documentation and keeping the fact a secret is almost inconceivably easier than conspiring to simultaneously hijack four airliners and use them to murder three thousand people, then keeping that a secret.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

But to what end? Point 2 shows what kind of gain Neocons would have had if they did such a thing.

Just what the hell would the point of the Obama fake certificate be? To destroy America? There have to be easier ways to do that.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

conspiring to simultaneously hijack four airliners and use them to murder three thousand people, then keeping that a secret.

Yeah but that really happened- by Al Q. And yes, its crazy that they managed it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There were a fair number of Hilary Clinton supporters that seemed to fall into the Birther camp back before the 2008 elections.

They didn't fall into it, they originated it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Neither are Birthers, the idea first appeared in the Clinton primary campaign. This was one reason that that set of primaries was as bitter as it was.

2) No, actually there's an indication it furthered the attempts to pursue that agenda, Neoconservatism's led to two ongoing debacles to which Democrats have added a third.

3) Sure. There's only one way to be born, 9/11 was when Islamists discovered Kamikaze attacks as an attention-grabbing tactic just as they'd nabbed suicide bombing from the Tamil Tigers. Trutherism asserts an equally wide-ranging conspiracy to that required by Birtherism and both rest on certain extremely flawed basic assertions.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You could have stopped typing after 1.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) The "Truthers" are not strictly from one party. There were libertarian truthers who fell into a Ron Paul Republican party type. It may have been majority D's, but it wasn't an exclusive movement the way that the "Birthers" are. (Anyone care to wager how many Dems doubt Obama's birth certificate?)

As linked above, it's the Democrats who planted the seed.

2) There is obvious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 helped further the Neocon agenda. From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq (neither of which stood a chance of happening without a 9/11 type event) there was substantial political gain to be had from a large terrorist attack happening on US soil that came from the middle east.

There is obvious evidence that creating a false birth certificate and fabricating Obama's place of birth helped further the Democratic agenda. With things like health care reform (which never had a chance of happening without someone like Obama being elected) there was substantial political gain to be had from someone like Obama being elected.

See, I just justified it, too!

3) While I am not here to suggest that the "Truthers" are correct, I am here to defend the idea that what happened on 9/11 is substantially more complicated than being born in Hawaii. The complications enable us to be confused as to what happened that day, and confusion breeds suspicion.

Translation: I'm less bothered by truthers, and might actually be somewhat sympathetic to their point of view.

So, can we please put that comparison to rest?

When Truthers and Birthers stop acting like their partisan mirrors in crazy, we can talk about it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Planting the seed isn't the same as making a mass movement.

I mean, iirc, the first guy to say 9/11 was an inside job was French. I don't think we can call the Truther movement a French movement.


Why did HCR not stand a chance w/o Obama? Isn't HCR something that *everybody* agreed needed to be done, just they had different ideas about how to fix it? I mean, really now? Why the F is Obama special enough to warrant a conspiracy? Just why the HELL would John McCain have played along?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

People who have been tarred with the epithet "birther," for the most part, just wanted to see a birth certificate. On an ordinary level, this is just healthy Missouri "Show me-ism" that certainly would have been satisfied by the recently released documents had they been released two years ago. Sure there are a few truly crazy ones who have elaborate fantasies about how Obama's grandmother really gave birth to him and just passed him off as her daughter's in order to garner sympathy and a place on the 2008 GOP presidential ticket. Oh wait, that is something Andrew Sullivan would think... never mind.

Anyway, birthers think that Obama was, at worst, ineligible to be president but he was at least being cagey about his origins in a way that no other presidential candidate could have gotten away with. We can get into why later, if you wish.

Truthers, on the other hand, think that the president of the US and large portions of his cabinet, the military, the intelligence agencies, the Congress and the media are complicit in either directly causing or indirectly allowing the worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor, an attack the killed thousands and rocked the markets and the broader economy for years, plunging us into unpopular wars that cost that president his popularity and his party the Congress.

You are right. There is no comparison.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why didn't the short-form birth certificate satisfy such folks?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Although X and Y are both problematic, they're incomparable because I prefer X. You prefer Y, you're bad. Go our side, down with your side.

Political discourse, so thrilling.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"This may well start a shit-show. Not looking to, but I realize the potential."

Oh, OK. ROFL

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Anyone care to wager how many Dems doubt Obama's birth certificate?

Now or initially? Initially, probably about 20%.

I do agree with you that the two things are not equivalent.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The birther movement is a form of disguised racism.

The truther movement is typically composed of those who are more open minded than the norm.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Or those who don't want to hear anybody else's arguments but their own. Make your pick.

Also, "birthers" is SO 2010! It's called "long-formers" now! :-)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

If you don't venture into insulting people who are trying to make counter-arguments, maybe it won't devolve into a shit-show.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

"I am here to defend the idea that what happened on 9/11 is substantially more complicated than being born in Hawaii"

Don't know about complicated, but it sure is more important.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

One could argue that if a government can't do a thing properly, they'd be very unlikely to carry out a massive conspiracy plot either.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Fixing healthcare kills profits for big pharma and the wealthy. Restraining high risk investment wings of banks, which endanger economies and jobs run contrary to the self-interests of wealthy bankers.

The reason governments fail is due to a conflict of interest between the rich and everyone else. Despite what "historians" may say, class warfare is alive and well in 2011, blah, blah.

If, however, a massive conspiracy benefitted were in the best interest of the wealthy -- a government could conceivably execute with perfection.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

9/11 was a conspiracy successfully orchestrated by a terrorist organization.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Osama, unfortunately, never had his day in court. And, the FBI was never forthcoming with evidence it claimed proved Osama was guilty.

[retrofire.livejournal.com]

There was a good article in the NY Times today "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" (hhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01conspiracy.html)

"...the attacks on Mr. Obama, she argued, are at essence about race. And because these theorists are fueled by partisan hatred, many won’t be satisfied. “They’ll always question the authenticity of the documents they’re given,” she said, “because they’re not driven by a quest for truth.” (NYTimes)

With George Bush being closely associated with the bin laden family, and so much suspect information surrounding 9/11, one can understand lingering doubts.

Bush spoke about "catapulting the propaganda." So many Americans are still convinced that we attacked Iraq because of 9/11. Bush was such a persistent liar that a lie became the truth. It's kind of amusing - it's the opposite of a conspiracy theory. At any rate, when you are dealing with an administration of liars of that magnitude, everything about them is suspect because even a child knows you can't trust a liar.