why are so many DUer's ready to buy into the 'official' story?

after the london subway and miami airport extra-judicial executions of innocent citizens, it was dismaying to see so many siding with the gov'ts story on what happened, only later to find out the police were telling bald-faced lies.

it would seem that if anything is to be learned by hanging out on DU, for even a short time, it's that GOVERNMENTS LIE. all of them. all the time.

oy. :eyes:

:shrug:

"I don't have to put up a thoughtful rebuttal, I can just scream tinfoil-hattery and your argument turns to mush!"

nt

It's pointless to argue with people who selectively pick their "facts."

is to don the tinfoil hat.

Present evidence of wrongdoing and I'll consider it. Simply stating that since Bush is in power something was wrong is not enough. That is donning the tinfoil hat.

I'm always willing to consider evidence, but without evidence all I have is the official version.

And your response was to impugn their testimony, rather than consider the possibility that the government was covering its ass. I've seen you do this on 9/11, on BBV, and on this Miami Airport shooting. Your faith in government is impressive.

I'm sorry, but I do not see conspiracy wherever tinfoil hat wearers decide tehre is one.

Prove your contentions.

attacked anyone who contradicts your views as tinfoilers.

I'm not really sold on a lot of these things, but I am definitely suspicious.

in the context of people who make assertions related to conspiracy theories about events with no evidence to back up the assertions.

When the official story doesn't add up, people need to have a way to consider alternate possibilities without being labeled nutcases, right?

When asserted as fact, I have a problem with it. Here's an example:

BUSH STOLE THE 2004 ELECTION

That's tinfoilhat nuttery.

More evidence to suggest fraud in 2004 election

That's effective brainstorming.

we have a winner

although that term "tinfoil hat" is lacking in imagination and originality. People use it to dismiss when they don't have any facts or information to present their case.

whenever i see quoted posts from freerepublic on DU, they use the term "tinfoil hat" to malign DUers.

i wonder what would constitute "evidence?"

what kind of source would be acceptable?

tells us that it didn't happen that way.

Other than that no amount of links and eye witness accounts seem to make it for those that want to bat down the discussion.

Nothing anyone can say that will sway them from their rigid thoughts.

I was under the impression that unless it was a Late Breaking News item, any one was free to "DISCUSS" any idea they may have, I guess that is wrong.

The Bully Republicans have turned many into Bully Democrats. We are not allowed to have any thought that would go against the grain of what the MEDIA and George Bush tells us if we must constantly supply links and sources that would NEVER be acceptable to the Emperors.

I recall the game, " Mother May I? ."

For some we must ask, " May we Have a Thought About Anything that does not meet your standards for TRUTH?"

That doesn't cut it for me.

I recall when Michael Moore's 911 came out,Republicans said he was Tin Hat crazy.

Every time I see that film I get stuck on GHWB visiting the Saudi's. Michael Moore didn't put that scene in that movie for his health. He put it in there because he wanted us to be smart enough to keep digging for information on the connection.



I saw a post in this thread that I really liked, listing all the items that would have been labeled TIN HATS( WMD etc!)

Tin Hat folks ain't crazy, I want to hear what they have to say.
If they have links,great. If they have sources great!



To stop the flow of ideas is too scary for a Progressive Forum.

the two words that come to mind vis a vis the strange posts here on du (ones that smell vaguely freeperish) are: agents provocateur.

these same people probably think COINTELPRO is tin foil hat stuff too.

Sometimes I thing I am at the wrong web site. :(

there sure are some vocal little buggers around here.

the 2000 elections
the Iraq War
tobacco industry cover up
asbestos industry cover up
9/11 WTC EPA cover up
the federal response to Katrina
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
the Bay of Pigs
Operation Northwoods
Iran/Contra
arms for hostages
the Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham defense contracts for brides and contribution scandals
Cheney's Halliburton profits
Walmart's forced labor camps
the Tuskegeee experiments
the Holocaust
the first Gulf War PR blitz
the lack of evidence for WMDs
etc.
etc.
etc.

then and only then can we speculate about such subjects without name calling!

Obviously, they've given statements to the Miami Police regarding the incident. They just haven't spoken with the media.

But I saw it yesterday and don't remember where. Sorry I can't give a link.

There are no such accounts. Google news is your friend. See if you can use it to back you up. In fact, the only confirmation is from a spokeperson for flight attendants and it seems likely that he was basing his comments on the initial official version

Thanks for the update.

There were some pretty complete DU threads of news accounts late last week . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1974759

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5553652


The key stories IMHO remain the Orlando Sentinel story by Mark Schlueb . . .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

And the AP story by Curt Anderson . . .

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

Plus I really think this WFTV story gets straight to the point . . .

http://www.wftv.com/news/5503137/detail.html

(not directed at you, Tasteblind).

Saying the Feds are CYAing is NOT the same as saying there's some kind of conspiracy.

And, the Feds are quite obviously CYAing. The whole "Thin Blue Line" thing.

that I've not been following the story since last week. But it's good to know that more people are speaking out.

Terribly depressing story...I feel horrible for that poor woman, losing her husband just in time for the holidays. Just another casualty in the "global war on terror."

i.e. "the official version".. is, if not refuted by what I consider evidence, true...

better see the Wizard about that getting that brain.

that's just how some people are

to be the only appropriate headgear, once the facts start trickling out..

That's all I ever ask. All we have is the official version. As it turns out, the "official" version is not even official. It's the trickling of rumor and innuendo as the story is breaking.

We know that the person in Miami was acting erratically prior to ever boarding the plane. This shows an immediate breakdown in the system because security officials within the airport should have begun doing something prior to him ever getting close.

We know that there was not an utterance of the word bomb, strike two on the government version.

We know the guy is claimed to have been bipolar and he was off his meds. Strike one for the guy who was killed. If you are supposed to be on meds, it's not a very bright move to stop taking meds and go to an airport in today's climate.

Mistakes were made on both sides. At the end of the day, looking at what we know currently, I still ahve to side with the Air Marshal trying to minimize the potential for loss of life.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

* * *

Here's how the event unfolded, according to witnesses and police:

Alpizar, who worked at a Home Depot in east Orange County, and his wife, Anne Buechner, were among the last to board the American Airlines Boeing 757 bound for Orlando International Airport. They had arrived in Miami about two hours earlier on a flight from Ecuador, where they had traveled with one of Buechner's relatives, a dentist who was providing free care to children.

A few minutes before takeoff, Alpizar ran for the exit, jostling other passengers in the aisle.

A Miami-Dade police spokeswoman said Thursday that multiple witnesses reported that the 44-year-old was yelling that he had a bomb as he made his way down the aisle with a backpack slung across his chest. Later, the agency's chief of investigations insisted that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declined to say whether he was on the plane at the time.

Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel -- seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin -- said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit. One thought he had taken the wrong flight. Another thought he was going to throw up.

"I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane. He never called out he had a bomb," said Orlando architect Jorge A. Borrelli, who helped comfort Alpizar's wife after the gunfire. "He never said a word from the point he passed me at Row 9. . . . He did not say a word to anybody."

Two teens seated in Row 26 agreed. So did Jorge Figueroa, a power-plant operator from Lakeland seated a few rows behind first class.

"He wasn't saying anything; he was just running," Figueroa said. "I said to myself, 'It is probably a person who took the wrong plane.' "

* * *

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

It seems to me that both the guy who got killed and the federal agent made huge mistakes.

Or is that the media take on it?

I have yet to see any "official" report on it, especially since it's the Orlando Police who are doing the official investigation.

For now, I'll stick with the federal agent (albeit recognizing the fact that mistakes were made) and will wait for the final official report.

And hoipefully, Air Marshals will end up with some training regarding recognition of the symptoms of mental illness. could save some lives in the future.

Perhaps you have forgotten about the statements of David Adams spokesperson for the Federal Air Marshall Service?

I can use google news for you if you would like, but here is a photo to jog memory . . .



Dave Adams, spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, defends the fatal shooting of Rigoberto Alpizar. (ABC NEWS)

and yes, they immediately lined up behind the federal agent.

That is standard operating procedure in these sorts of things. Look at any time there is a shooting regardless of any questions surrounding it.

I think yes, but feel free to disagree. Certainly it is not the final official version. For instance, officials no longer claim Alpizar said bomb on the plane, yet most of their defenders still think he did.

of such an incident.

But then, the bubble headed bleach blondes would encounter their own heads exploding if that was the case.

It appears that the initial government version is at the very least not entirely correct in that it conflicts with all public statements made to date by witnesses. Seven witnesses assert that Alipzar was silent when running down the aisle and off the plane. Yet folks who point that out get labeled as tin foilers. I have the same reasonable question as the original poster -- why do so may here on DU buy into the initial government account? I think an answer is suggested by law professor Paul Campos . . .

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CAMPOS-12-13-05

...

"Indeed, some of the media commentary on the day after the shooting treated the incident not as sobering tragedy, but as an encouraging sign that the system is working. One guest on a cable news show devoted to analyzing the stock market went so far as to recommend airline stocks, on the theory that Americans would be reassured that an apparent security risk could so readily elicit a lethal reaction from those entrusted with keeping us safe.

A comment posted on the Orlando Sentinel's Web site reflects a similar sentiment: "The lesson here for all of us is this: we have to take responsibility for our family members and ourselves. If you act in an unsafe manner, you may very well be shot. I am OK with the terrorists understanding this lesson."

The attitude reflected in this comment illustrates what most if not all of the elaborate security rituals that have been enacted since 9/11 are really about. These rituals don't actually make Americans appreciably safer (who believes that a real terrorist would behave in the manner Alpizar did?), but they make many of us feel safer.

What all the security protocols, and color-coded threat levels, and air marshals who are prepared to shoot people who act strangely are designed to achieve is to create the illusion of competence and control. The authorities know what they're doing _ this is the essential message. And if innocent people end up getting spied on or imprisoned or tortured or shot, well that's just a cost of what our government likes to call freedom."

The air marshal who shot and killed a passenger who made a bomb threat reacted as trained, says a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service.

"This was a textbook scenario and they acted instinctively, based on their training," Dave Adams said. He added that federal air marshals complete "one of the most robust training programs" and that they continue to train on a daily basis.

"They felt their lives were threatened, and they had to alleviate the threat," Adams said.

"He was running down the aisle of the aircraft saying: 'I have a bomb in my bag,' " Adams said. "The federal air marshals pursued him and told him to stop, they were police. Stop, drop the bag, he didn't comply. He started to approach them with his hand in the bag. They told him to drop to the ground, drop the bag, and he refused."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1385143

White House backs marshals in shooting

The White House says the federal air marshals responded correctly...

more...
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051208-105231-8383r.htm

that we are fast becoming - if not already - a police state is certainly not CT and this incident is just another symptom of our gov dangerous policies and attitudes.

peace

to be shot... how dare he have some type of episode!

He went off his meds and then tried to fly under the current climate.

That, in and of itself, was a recipe for disaster. He's an adult and, apparently, is quite lucid when on his meds. It was his adult, informed, and coherent choice to go off his meds and attempt to fly.

And he doesn't get a pass from me because he was mentally ill. He knew about his condition, knew he should take his meds, and made a conscious decision to go off his meds. He's an adult and should be held accountable for that part of the incident.

a recipe for disaster now-a-days

peace

I think you'd have had the encounter in the actual airport, but failure to follow the orders of the law enforcement anywhere can result in you being shot to death immediately.

glad you are adjusting comfortably :hi:

peace

These are third world countries?

I'd suggest turning off the TV.

One person is now dead. If they hadn't shot him six times simply for not following their orders, zero people would be now dead.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

http://www.wftv.com/news/5503137/detail.html

:shrug:

Demanding evidence but ignoring facts presented is disingenuous at best.

It helps ward off Fox News rays coming from next door!

Antenna to recieve the mind control rays even more efficiently!

In fact, the entire notion of wearing tinfoil hats has been shown to be a government conspioracy to help them take control of the people who are more difficult to reach with tehir mind control rays!

:evilgrin:

and I was just going to watch the news.

It wouldn't exactly be the first time for a government to use very dirty tricks to get its way - in secret of course. Some of it leaks, and some of that ends up in the MSM, ie Northwoods/Bay of Pigs (which was a false-flag op), and Iran-Contra (CIA involvement in illegal narcotics- and weapons trade).
The reason why it's so easy for people to forget about those things is because the MSM doesn't point out the pattern.

bald-faced (bôldfst)
adj.
Brash; undisguised: a bald-faced lie.
Zoology. Having a white face or face markings.



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It is bald faced.

Sorry, that wasn't a proper subject object sentence, failed to use proper hyphenation and the first letter wasn't capitalized. So what?

:hi:

not really being mean - but pet grammar peeves belong in a pet grammar peeves thread. And I am the boss of me and I am unanimous in this. ;)

I conceder a lie unless I investigate it myself with other sources, I have been surprised myself at the number of people that believe the official line,
it's called critical thinking

casting a bad light upon the Air Marshalls also hold true. If the good story that
was put out is not trustworthy, then neither are the bad stories. Everybody always
says that the media lies(a belief which I also have) except when the story backs
their point of view, then all of a suddent said story and reporter are beyond
reproach. It's very transparent and pathetic, I'm not speaking to you directly, I'm
just working off of the point that you brought up.

Everyone says the media is lying except when it gives positive coverage to one's political views.

The rub is that conservative media lies far more, about larger issues, with more intensity, and with the help of much more propaganda money, than the tiny, almost non-existent left-leaning media does.

some of the the lawyers and (unfortunately far less frequently) some of the witnesses. We have to be the jury. Neither the official story nor any witnesses/lawyers questioning it should be given any special privileges when trying to determine the truth.

The press Battered us with their Lies for so long, we wouldn't recognize the Truth if they spread it on our toast!

But on certain websites, they often mistakenly say "boldfaced".

I guess they're thinking of a sort of type which is called "boldface". But that expression was used before typewriters, computers, etc., were common.

that right does the same with iraq war. fight them there (kill them all) rather than anything happen to them here.

Are you going to be the one who decides who's fellow human life is worth saving, I think that
probably was what the Air Marshall's were thinking about protecting, fellow human life. These
men and women have a much tougher a job than you and I do, if only they had the comfort of a
computer screen and a desk along with hindsight, then everything would be perfect. Unfortunately
they don't, which is why I feel bad for them. They have to live in the moment, and it's a very
stressful one with a lot riding on their actions. More often than not they are probably better
people than you and I.

"Are you going to be the one who decides who's fellow human life is worth saving..."?

You base an accusation on "I think that
probably....". Probably/think is a very weak defense when attacking those skeptical that either action (shooting/pre-emptively striking)was or is justified.

It's no wonder we are stuck in an illegal war that has already drained our resources. We had a surplus ya know? And over 2000 dead soldiers and possibly 120,000 Iraqis, because someone "thought" Iraq was a threat to the US.

They did take action to protect fellow human life. Just because you don't like the action
that was taken doesn't mean that they weren't acting in the best interest of those present.
That's what I'm saying, they have tough decisions, tougher ones than you and I make. No matter
what they did the same Monday morning qb's would be here criticizing because they aren't out
there actually making the tough decisions. Everyone who is criticizing these people, #1 don't
have all the facts, #2 more than likely weren't there, #3 probably will tell you that the media
lies, except of course if it backs up their beliefs, then they always tell the truth.

I don't mind someone protecting human life. However, they were not protecting human life. They instead destroyed human life. That we do know. What they "tried" to do, and what they have done are two very different things.

I know you won't agree, but you are. Two different circumstances with different information and timetables to make decisions.

I am citing an example of two cases where people "jumped" the gun.

And both "Official" stories are very weak.

I think the investigation is still ongoing at this point. :shrug:

The official story is Alpizar said something to the effect he had a bomb and that the air marshalls followed proper procedures. It was expressed by several government spokespersons including Scotty McClellan immediately after event occurred. It was parroted by media and even accepted as truth by many on DU who rallied around what they view as an unfortunate but necessary death.

See for instance these stories . . .

Witnesses dispute official line on plane shooting
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1918131,00.html

Air marshals followed procedures: Official
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1134082211302&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_Canada&call_pageid=968332188774&call_pagepath=News/Canada

Eyewitnesses refute official story in fatal shooting of passenger at Miami airport
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20051210080356710

The Urban Assault Vehicle.

Sid

So your premise is more bogus than anything else. Unless you'd have us believe that Hillary killed Vince Foster.....

times when they back up my positions and then they are always correct

"all gov'ts lie, every time."

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CAMPOS-12-13-05

Has protecting against terrorism gone too far?

By PAUL C. CAMPOS
Scripps Howard News Service
13-DEC-05

The reaction to the shooting death of Rigoberto Alpizar provides a sobering glimpse into America's current obsession with keeping ourselves safe from terrorism. Alpizar was shot by federal air marshals after he ran off a plane that was about to depart from Miami to Orlando.

* * *

This was hardly surprising, but what was disappointing was the markedly deferential attitude the media took toward the government's hasty assertions that the air marshals acted properly, even after major discrepancies began to appear between the government's initial story and the emerging facts. This deference was all the more striking given that less than five months ago the British police released what turned out to be a wildly inaccurate story about a man who they had just shot to death on the subway, in what later came to look like a case of something not too far removed from cold-blooded murder.

Indeed, some of the media commentary on the day after the shooting treated the incident not as sobering tragedy, but as an encouraging sign that the system is working. One guest on a cable news show devoted to analyzing the stock market went so far as to recommend airline stocks, on the theory that Americans would be reassured that an apparent security risk could so readily elicit a lethal reaction from those entrusted with keeping us safe.

A comment posted on the Orlando Sentinel's Web site reflects a similar sentiment: "The lesson here for all of us is this: we have to take responsibility for our family members and ourselves. If you act in an unsafe manner, you may very well be shot. I am OK with the terrorists understanding this lesson."

The attitude reflected in this comment illustrates what most if not all of the elaborate security rituals that have been enacted since 9/11 are really about. These rituals don't actually make Americans appreciably safer (who believes that a real terrorist would behave in the manner Alpizar did?), but they make many of us feel safer.

* * *

Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CAMPOS-12-13-05

about *anything*

not once. not one iota of truth.

*Every* message or speech is a lie.

2001, if you really believe that, then they have really sold you in the belief of the
2 party system. The government always lies, no matter who's in charge. The only thing
that changes is that the lies are about different topics. It will never change as long
as people on both sides stay in the group think mold of "the goverment has lied since 2001"
or "the government never told the truth once from 1992-2000" neither side is for "us" c'mon
you have to know that

for example, most economic statistics were truthful during Clinton's administration.

Briefly, the Clinton administration spoke the truth about the disastrous condition of our health care system.

There always have been lies, but presently no topic is truthfully presented.

they are all par of a system that is set up to include as few people
as possible, that is tough to accept whe you hitch your wagons to
one person and lay it all on the line. It's just the case of being
sold and not wanting to think you could be wrong

but his lies are mixed with their lies and that's all their is to it. It's not 2 different sides
fighting for the truth to come out, they are all a part of the same system. As long as people
choose one of the 2 sides and bicker over who's side is smarter, more honest and all that, nothing
will change. They will keep raping this country of it's funds to help their friends and themselves.
In the end those who blindly followed will be left on their own. Wondering what happened. It'll be too late then.

to either party. But there is no doubt that this particular administration has an agenda that should be horrific to any thinking person (operative word: THINKING). You can't say that what this cabal is doing is nothing more than business as usual, that would be totally disingenuous.

I assume you mean Clinton, in which case your assertion is demonstrably false.

and there's a marshall, I don't want him to try to 'reason' with the person. I just want the marshall to stop him from blowing up the fucking plane.

But that may not have been the case.

when the Marshall got bored and blew his brains out.

But the media doesn't want you to know that

:eyes:

Actually the Orlando Sentinel and the AP both had pretty good stories detailing Alpizar's behavior on plane . . .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3514066.html

But the information contained therein seems to be ignored by defenders of the official story.

That behavior could have had multiple reasons. He could have been afraid of flying, late for an appointment, or just REALLY caffinated.

Or, he could have been carrying a bomb.

I would have alerted the authorities to at least talk to him, and find out why.

As for the passenger saying he didn't hear 'bomb', I'd like to see whose story the other passengers corroborate.

He may be telling the truth, or he may be searching for his 15 minutes. I don't know.

It is seven passengers who say he did not say bomb! Indeed they say he didn't say anything at all.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-planefolo0905dec09,0,3421926.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

"Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel -- seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin -- said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit. One thought he had taken the wrong flight. Another thought he was going to throw up."

From the Sentinel:

A Miami-Dade police spokeswoman said Thursday that multiple witnesses reported that the 44-year-old was yelling that he had a bomb as he made his way down the aisle with a backpack slung across his chest. Later, the agency's chief of investigations insisted that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declined to say whether he was on the plane at the time.

snip

Investigators say that two undercover air marshals followed Alpizar off the plane and ordered him to surrender. The marshals say Alpizar yelled that he had a bomb and would use it. He walked toward them, they backed up, he started to put his hands in his backpack, and they fired. Alpizar was hit by multiple shots fired by both officers.

Multiple witnesses? And all the people who said they didn't hear bomb were on the plane. The officers said he yelled bomb wehn he was off.

Seems to me a key unknown fact is when and why did the air marshalls come to believe that Alpizar had a bomb. If he did not say anything about a bomb whatsoever until after he got off the plane, what was the basis and nature of their initial pursuit? Honestly, I'm still really confused about when and why the marshalls thought Alpizar had a bomb.

In any event, the initial official version was that he ran down the aisle yelling he had a bomb and was shot for it. Since it appears he did not in fact engage in such behavior, it seems pretty reasonable to raise questions about the official account.

For the media and officials including the white house to parrot that this was a textbook procedure begs credulity.

The initial account, of course, did not have everything straight. Emotions were high, and people were scared, or even horrified.

Still, as facts have started coming in, we're seeing the truth rise out of the murky, inchoate rumors.

And she was shouting about his mental illness not about a bomb. He was silent. That is the truth as it has arisen.

I heard him saying to his wife, 'I've got to get off the plane,'" McAlhany said. "He bumped me, bumped a couple of stewardesses. He just wanted to get off the plane."

snip

"The person was screaming, saying he would blow up the plane, reaching into his bag — they had to react," Amat said.

Anywho, him running to get off the plane should alarm marshalls, I hope. What if he planted a bomb, and was fleeing?

Passenger John McAlhany says Alpizar spoke to his wife BEFORE he ran off the plane. He also states that Alpizar "absolutely" did not say the word bomb at all. "This was wrong," McAlhany said. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

And John Amat, national operations vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, says Alpizar was screaming as he reached into his bag. This would have occurred AFTER Alpizar ran off the plane. Of course Amat was not actually there.

I think the point of original post is why so many on DU readily buy into the account that spokespersons like John Amat provide.

everyone either denies it if it doesn't fit their philosophy, or praises it if it does.

I'm more inclined to believe eyewitness accounts rather than spokesperson accounts. Spokespersons have an obvious interest to promote and protect. So when government spokesperson says that everything that went down was proper, and an eyewitnesses opines otherwise, I'll reasonable trumpet the eyewitness and question the government account. In this case, the government no longer claims that Alpizar shouted bomb while on the plane. I don't understand why so many on DU insist that he did.

themselves saw or heard.

This does not necessarily mean bad, but an eyewitness can miss something, or may have started paying attetion midway through.

A spokesperson gets to look at all sides, so they have a much more complete picture. But they also have an agenda.

That said, I still believe that this should be investigated. ANYTIME that an officer shoots an unarmed suspect should be investigated.

best evidence that currently exists?

Nobody else seems to be frightened by this man. Nobody else seems to have thought this poor guy was a threat. The best evidence so far is that this guy had a panic attack on a plane and ran off of it, then didn't obey the Air Marshals who told him to stop as he was running from the gate, resulting in them shooting him six times. Note that he'd made it through security and he was already off the plane, so what were the chances that a large number of people's lives were at risk?

Do you think having a panic attack on a plane should now be a capital crime? Because 9/11 has changed everything?

I'd be pretty frightened.

"A spokesperson gets to look at all sides, so they have a much more complete picture."

Geez, you really lost me on this point. You acknowledge there are different sides. And you suggest that the spokesperson is in a better position to see complete picture. But it seems to me in the hours following the killing, they really don't know much more than what they are initially told and what the preliminary evidence might suggest. A more complete picture? Not necessarily.

So spokesperson David Adams says, "He was running down the aisle of the aircraft saying: 'I have a bomb in my bag,' ". And special agent James Bauer says "At some point, he uttered threatening words that included a sense that, in fact, that he had a bomb." And then when pressed, the agency's chief of investigations insists that Alpizar was yelling about a bomb but declines to say whether he was on the plane at the time.

The complete picture they paint seems pretty hazy to me. Apparently at some point Alpizar spoke some words which gave someone the sense that he had a bomb. I'm still really curious about what those words were and when they were uttered. Seven eyewitnesses are of no help as they say he was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit. Alas they don't have the benefit of the complete picture.

And the Feds dropped this "bomb" thing pretty quick... he wasn't even on the plane when he was shot.

This info has been out there for days now,

not the jet way and you'd need a pretty good size bomb to destroy a plane sitting on the ground.

he could have armed the bomb, or made a mistake, and scrambled to get off the plane before it detonated.

then shooting him six times would have surely solved that problem, right?

The government didn't lie in the case of the Stockwell shooting. The police did. That's a different matter entirely. Governments are steered by political concerns. Police systems by and large are not in the UK, or at least should not be. If any lasting good is to come from the Stockwell shooting, it is the exposure of the collusion of Sir Ian Blair in the politicisation of the Metropolitan Police - a situation that is now being examined in minute detail by an independent inquiry, as it should be in an operational democratic society. There will be a further inquiry after this one. Criminal charges may also be brought.

On a more general point regarding the tendency of many DUers to reach for the tinfoil the instant anything happens ...

Yes, governments sometimes lie. They do NOT "always" lie. Government, any government, is an enormous endeavour employing hundreds of thousands, millions, of people. If you have any work with the government, or with a government agency, you will begin to realise that the thing that obsesses most of these people is covering their own ass. This means that "A" will rarely do anything, no matter how minor, without checking with "B", copying that request to "C", and asking "D" if "B" is the right person to ask. This happens even in governments that are considered "efficient" and produces a vast amount of paper which swirls around many different departments and organisational echelons.

(Why do they do this? It's the nature of government as opposed to private enterprise. Politicians do their best to ensure they take credit and the unelected take the blame. Therefore the unelected do everything they can to avoid being the one left holding the blame-parcel when the music stops.)

This means that when a mighty big lie is told by a minister or a government agency, it is usually tumbled in a matter of days (as in the case of Stockwell) or the more laborious process of tumbling is set in motion. Lies tend to be very easy to expose, or expose themselves as events develope, and as such governments use them sparingly. It takes competence and a relatively small number of people to keep a secret - and these two things are rare in government, which involves large numbers of people and precious little competence.

But surely treating everything as a lie is just healthy questioning, right? Up to a point. The trouble with tinfoil is that it gets everywhere. It's all or nothing. They have to all be in on it, at every level. And that automatically makes tinfoil implausible.

However, the tinfoil tendency creates an unhealthy mindset. It breeds defeatism. It lends itself to inappropriate and impractical responses. It flies against hope, and ambition. It is a corrosive, negative force. For all its power, government is not an unfeeling monolith. It can be changed.

Defeat comes wrapped in tinfoil.

:applause:

Great clarity of insight. I wish all the tin-foil hatters here could realize that.

I'm in contact with parts of the UK government all the time in the course of my work and social life, and they really are relentlessly human, with all the good and bad that entails.

I think part of the trouble with the tinfoil tendency is a feeling of separation from government. They should get involved in politics at a grassroots level, make a difference, work on committees, organise. They'd feel better then.

The program that trains these individuals is a FEDERAL AIR MARSHALL program: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/fams/training.htm
SEVEN WEEKS of training outside of knowing how to SHOOT? I had more training on how to become a SAILOR in BOOT CAMP.

The Air Marshall program is populated by personnel who are marginally trained to make life or death decisions. If you want such a program, I suggest you use persons taken from a more rigorous discipline, such as a State Police academy, THEN send them trough your "Air Marshall" Training at the "Technical Center" in New Jersey, or New Mexico or...

When the MAIN STREAM MEDIA continually supports an obviously corrupt administration to the point where its reporters are implicated in complicity with government propaganda, is it "tinfoil hatting" to suggest that when the "official" supported story is proved untrue that a certain amount of government coersion or cooperation is possible to be involved? In the day where the government through the offices of the United States Army is paying for propaganda in Iraq, this is not exactly a "reach."

I suggest that HEALTHY questioning of the "official" story in every instance is in the best interest of the people ALL OF THE TIME, and to suggest that if you have nothing but the "official" story and that's the story you're sticking to is the opposite of tinfoil hatting: DRINKING THE KOOL AID.

Don't just sit there fretting. I know it's easy. But it won't change anything.

McCarthy Teen, 1968 after RFK assassination.
McGovern activist and Democratic Party organizer, 1971-1972.
Carter activist and supporter, in fact,
EVERY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE in reach activist and supporter.
Democratic Party Member: Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Maryland and California.
Democratic Party Candidate (local) 2002.
Local editorialist published 11 times PORT HURON TIMES HERALD.

Not to insinuate that YOU have done nothing, but you did insinuate that I had done nothing. Sort of like the assumption the "tinfoil hatters" that you so abhor make, is it not?

CORRECTION: I DID NOT work for Hubert Humphrey. Not a truly evil man, but at the time it was asking too much.

Do you think I would make the suggestion if I didn't?

"Not to insinuate that YOU have done nothing, but you did insinuate that I had done nothing."

In this, I DISCLAIM insinuation that YOU have done nothing, and protest that you suggest I have done nothing.

I know nothing of your background, therefore I did not accuse you of Political sloth. I only asked the same courtesy of you.

However, I simply said that you could do something now, not that you had never done anything.

and not only does that breed contempt it breeds CT some of which are true.

peace

What I was saying was that most aren't and that the mindset that treats everything that way is defeatist.

or call folks names who are trying to discuss them.

fyi

peace

I was entirely civil, unlike the OP.

if you see it as otherwise, perhaps, thats the problem :shrug:

peace

Considering the fact that the tinfoilers often use the term tinfoil as well.

I think you just wanted to be offended.

no offense intended

peace

I wouldn't have invested the time and thought that I did into my post. I wanted to argue.

YOu called people tin foil hatters because you simply disagree with them. YOu then go on to tell the someone to do something about the situation if they did not like the way it was handled. You didn't take the time out to ask that person if they were doing something you told them to do something. You say you took the time out for you oh so thoughtful post yet you didn't take the time out to ask the person if they were doing something for the cause. You simply assumed they were doing nothing because they are on the other side of the debate, the side your against. Do tell, are those 6th grade debating skills or what? Don't like what someone has to say call them a tin foil hatters or claim they do nothing for the cause they are debating without asking first what they have done. I hate that shit! If you don't know the poster personally don't sit here on your damn internet high horse calling them out for not doing enough for something thing they feel strongly about. What are you, too lazy to ask a simple question before you go making accusations about what that person is or is not doing?

You just manufacture threads suggesting that DUers who disagree with them are ignorant dolts or slow learners or something.

By the way, when accusing someone of being offensive, it's best not to litter your post with insults. Makes you look rather hypocritical.

Tinfoilers. Happy to dish out belittling insults that make them feel so superior to everyone else. Return the favour, and they throw their toys out of the pram. Hypocrites.

considering the fact that they often use those terms as well?

Because that's obviously a completely different thing entirely. Unless you really do feel that chiding conspiracy theorists on a website is the same thing as calling black people the N-word. Do you?

Bush?

You should be asking: "What can I do about this?"

:rofl::wow::rofl::wow::rofl:

Next time, try using words!

Strawman

Terror alerts , Patriot acts, fighting them over there..anything to keep people afraid,, because if they keep them afraid ,they can control them. They are good at training Puppies into becoming Junk-Yard dogs,

A perpetual state of "alert" in that sense does divert time, energy and attention from genuine grassroots politics.

"it's that GOVERNMENTS LIE. all of them. all the time."

Direct cut-and-paste. Governments lie all the time, it says.

I read "all the time" to mean that it happens all the time, not that everything governments says is a lie.

What does the above sentence mean to you? Does it mean that no one ever understands simple sentence? Or simply that folks like you often have trouble with reading comprehension?

Power corrupts, don't let it go unchecked - remain critical and be suspicious of the motives of authority.

I doubt anyone on DU would argue that governments don't lie.

But to assume that anything said by any government is a lie is a kneejerk reaction, as useless as believing they all tell the truth all the time.

As in, "people use logical fallacies all the time."

over an issue like the slaying of a mentally ill man just because he was "off his meds" I tend to immediately think that person is a troll. I can't help it.

The bipolar dude is dead. A sane system examines why; we don't blame the guy because "Gee, he is sick and we live in a society that kills sick people for sport so DEAL WITH IT."

I am disgusted when people try to find answers and some DUers act like Scotty M. defending Shrubby.

Trying to discover the truth in this evil age is a courageous act. Automatically accepting whatever the media say is what sheep do.

Just my opinion. That's all.

who call other posters trolls, kool-ade drinkers, Scotty M, freepers and so on just because they haven't bought in to the latest paranoid bit of speculation.

Trying to discover the truth is indeed a courageous act. The tinfoilers should give it a try.

name calling or trying to expand blithe generalizations to encompass all human endeavors.

Truth is discovered by examining events on a case by case basis and applying critical reasoning skills to each case based on the merits of all available evidence. This process may or may not reasonably lead to what you blithely generalize as "tinfoil hat" speculation depending on the case at hand.

not blithe generalisation? I'm sorry, I hadn't realised the definitions had changed so radically overnight.

You aren't interested in the truth. The truth is rather dull and untidy.

I am the one applying critical reasoning skills here, not you tinfoilers. Saying "I bet Bush did it" when there's a fire at a UK oil refinery is not advancing the truth. Automatically assuming the worst in every case and attributing superhuman powers to government is not advancing the truth.

And the application of critical reasoning will rarely be aided by speculation of any kind.

(And I think it's funny that you tinfoilers are now acting all offended about being called tinfoilers. Given that it's so offensive, perhaps you should get the site admin to remove this little chap from the smilies: :tinfoilhat:. How insensitive of them! Why don't they just add a little smilie in a KKK hood? While you're pondering that, add up all the instances where tinfoilers non-tinfoilers Kool-ade drinkers, sheep, blind, ignorant, sheeple, Rovian plants, Zionists, etc. etc. etc.)

Specifically, Air Marshall spokesperson David Adams lied when he said "He was running down the aisle of the aircraft saying: 'I have a bomb in my bag,'". Calling folks tinfoilers for pointing this out demonstrates a disinterest in the truth in my opinion.

Furthermore you misquote the original poster. You leave out the crucial period. The statements were "all governments lie" and "all the time". It is obtuse to read that to mean that all governments lie every time, as you insist on doing. Rather the clear connotation is that it happens all the time. The question of the original poster which I've yet to see you answer in any of your posts, is why is it that some folks here on DU are so ready to unthinkingly buy into the government version of events. What I find remarkable not only is the level of buy in but the extent of the ridicule used against those with the audacity to say it isn't so.

I know nothing about it. I also never said that governments never lie.

The original poster's sentiment is obvious, no matter what semantic angle you mine. The OP states that lying is endemic. It is not. Spin is, but that's a different matter.

I don't think anyone on DU "unthinkingly" buys into the government's version of events. I'm certain they think, and then choose the government version of events.

But your implication that believing the government version of something is automatically "unthinking" is very revealing. That's why I find it so funny that you're "surprised" at the "ridicule" shown to people who revel in conspiracy fantasies and the absurd idea that you're somehow an audacious minority with the courage to speak out, when a brief glance at the makeup of the responses on this thread demonstrates otherwise.

I propose a deal. I will stop using the word "tinfoiler" when the tinfoilers stop using the words Kool-Ade drinker, sheep, blind, ignorant, puppies, unthinking, or Rovian plants. Deal?

and why so many DU folks readily bought into the governments version of events. You acknowledge that you know nothing about it. That is precisely my point and my meaning when I use the term unthinking. The only times I used the word unthinking was in response to slur tinfoilers. I've never used any of those other words you mention, and in general do no insult others without provocation.
The same cannot be said for many of those who hurled insults at the original poster.

This thread was also about the Stockwell shooting. I talked about the Stockwell shooting. I also talked in more general terms about how government works, which is directly relevant. My experience is of the UK government, so my remarks naturally have a UK slant. But the same rules apply.

And I really don't see the term "tinfoil hat" as being as "offensive" as some people here seem to believe.

truth that you PRETEND to be so concerned about.

The body of my message was intended to advance the truth. That's the part you don't even bother pretending to be interested in. Otherwise you would have addressed it.

Nor do misapprehension of the English language or the use of logical fallacies.

The statements "I eat at restaurants all the time" and "I eat at home all the time" are NOT mutually exclusive.

Saying the governments often lie is not a blithe generalization. It's a proven fact.

The knee jerk reaction of people believing the "official" story could stem from fear. Since 9/11, it seems as if people are willing to submit to governmental intrusion on privacy and civil rights. The more the media promotes this atmosphere of "fear", the more conditioned we become to blindly follow without questioning authority. It's been done very slowly (frog in water analogy) and the reaction on this board proves it's working.

Scary to think this will continue.

As told by Air Marshall spokesperson David Adams on Good Morning America . . .



http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1385143

The air marshal who shot and killed a passenger who made a bomb threat reacted as trained, says a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service.

"This was a textbook scenario and they acted instinctively, based on their training," Dave Adams said. He added that federal air marshals complete "one of the most robust training programs" and that they continue to train on a daily basis.

"They felt their lives were threatened, and they had to alleviate the threat," Adams said.

"He was running down the aisle of the aircraft saying: 'I have a bomb in my bag,' " Adams said. "The federal air marshals pursued him and told him to stop, they were police. Stop, drop the bag, he didn't comply. He started to approach them with his hand in the bag. They told him to drop to the ground, drop the bag, and he refused."

i mean, what's with the tinfoil-hat BS?

nowhere in my original post do i refer to, or even infer that there's a conpiracy, theoretical or actual.

:eyes:

Doesn't make much sense to me, but then I tend to be a skeptic. I guess I should just be more accepting of the truth as told to me.

take big swallow, and stop doubting the powers that be.

now, doesn't that feel better?

It's like bashing your head off a brick fucking wall around here sometimes.

"Hey if it was on CNN then it must be true"

To be fair you have to take into account the small legion of shit trolls that live here.

You know who you are you fucking tards.

http://www.reason.com/hod/jb121405.shtml

Reason Online

December 14, 2005

Dead Man Tells No Tales

Media docility and another no-cost federal killing

James Bovard

Two air marshals gunned down an American citizen last week in Miami, and most of the establishment media seemingly couldn't care less. Immediately after 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar died on December 7 in a hail of bullets from two air marshals, Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service told CNN that Alpizar had shouted "I have a bomb in my bag" while running up and down the aisle of an American Airlines plane as it sat on the runway. This was the version of events that the vast majority of the media repeated unquestioningly in the first days after the killing.

However, online articles on December 8 by Time.com and CNN.com contained quotes from passengers debunking the feds' story. The Orlando Sentinel reported on December 9, "Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel—seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin—said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit." No passenger the Sentinel spoke to offered any account akin to what the feds claimed.

It is not yet clear exactly what happened at Miami International Airport. But the primary justification the feds offered for using deadly force did not survive even two full news cycles.

Nevertheless, the conservative press rushed to exonerate.

* * *

http://www.reason.com/hod/jb121405.shtml

same insightful column, different publication and title . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001699287

I think that election fraud (which people here used to dismiss, and now most accept) and the cover up of whatever happened on 9-11 are the most significant issues we face, because they both, if truly investigated, would expose the Bush administration for what it is. EVEN IF 9-11 was "just" gross, extreme incompetence. Why Du'ers don't want to do that is beyond me.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C15%5Cstory_15-12-2005_pg3_2

Thursday, December 15, 2005

THINKING ALOUD: Killing callously — this must stop! —Razi Azmi

The West must not discard liberties in the name of protecting liberty. It cannot allow a bunch of crackpot, misguided religious zealots to destroy the freedoms which made the West the exemplar of freedoms and human rights. This trend of shooting at the drop of a hat must stop

Two American federal “sky” marshals have shot dead Rigoberto Alpizar, a passenger on a plane at Miami airport, Florida, on the suspicion of carrying a bomb. As it turned out, he was unarmed and harmless, merely an irate passenger boarding yet another flight.

* * *

Two facts about these two deplorable shootings are noteworthy. One is the discrepancy between the original official versions, on the one hand, and the truth, on the other. This is thanks to the existence of a competent and free press, and independent watchdog bodies. Government pronouncements anywhere on any subject, especially official versions of deaths from police shootings, should always be regarded with scepticism. Police accounts should be presumed to be cover-ups until proven true by independent verification.

Secondly, both victims were neither Muslim nor Arab. Ironically, both were Latin American Christians, the farthest removed from Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda.

* * *


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C15%5Cstory_15-12-2005_pg3_2

Mostly the only reason a lot of them ever want to tell the truth anymore is that they need a little credibility

We the collectively social, need to devise a better squirrel cage for them polemical rats to run in


http://members.shaw.ca/jmoelaert/




The fact you can ask the question does say something btw

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2005/1634

Panic attack
by Robert C. Koehler, Tribune Media Services
December 15, 2005

Five shots rang out in the name of homeland security and suddenly a nervous, Costa Rica-born U.S. citizen lay dead on a jetway at Miami International Airport - tragic collateral damage in a war that seems less rational with each passing day.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman later tried to fob off last week's shooting by two air marshals of 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar, who was unarmed and suffered from bipolar disorder, as a "textbook response" to the threat of terrorism. If that's true, God help us all. It looked more like a flailing, messy overreaction to nothing much and, at the same time, a signal to the American public that, when real terrorists don't present themselves, we're more than willing to wage war on ourselves.

Americans - certainly Americans of color - may well have more to fear from domestic security forces than al-Qaida.

The official story of the shooting is simple and short: The marshals approached Alpizar when he began acting strangely. He had a backpack strapped to his chest and shouted that he had a bomb. When they ordered him to drop to the floor, he walked toward them menacingly and reached into the backpack. The marshals, making a split-second decision, opened fire. While they later discovered that he was unarmed, his erratic behavior was so suspicious no one could second-guess the decision to shoot. (And his wife's screams that he was simply off his medication could easily have been a ploy to distract the marshals.)

* * *

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2005/1634

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2005/1634

It's "faith-based" thinking at its most out of control: The sky's the limit on our imagined peril, so, of course, we can never be secure, but if we keep firing at everything that jumps from the shadows, surely one of these days there will be nothing left to fear. Indeed, Fox News commentator Gary B. Smith, divining in Alpizar's death the message that "the airlines and the U.S. are not going to settle for anything that even resembles a terrorist attack," predicted a 25 percent jump in American Airlines stock.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2005/1634

We live in an era of the endless representation, the mediated existence. Where nothing is real and we can be largely unaware of our own circumstances. Life as seen through the camera lens. We prefer it this way - The sign is more important than the thing, the image more real and enduring than the fact. A cult-ure that exists with a manufactured and false consciousness. We are thoroughly corporatized and the first set of peoples living a branded (un)reality with little or no understanding of how are lives are affected and controlled by the men behind the curtains. To look at the reality would mean giving up on all concepts of the shape of ones current political views.

It's a hall of mirrors.