David Cameron Says Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS.

a reply to: stumason

Cameron did not just single out Muslim conspiracy theorists. He was all-inclusive in his desire to stop "so called non-violent extremists."

David can't very well start locking up Muslim conspiracy theorists and ignore conspiracy theorists with Christian/native British backgrounds, can he? He would then be adding fuel to his own conspiracy that "Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy."

You can't play favorites in this game.

Wouldn't worry too much just another in a long and never ending line of douche bag politicians. It is funny that we are somehow dangerous to these idiots, maybe they fear more than they let on.

a reply to: Frith

Did you read the transcript or watch the speech?

The single paragraph where he references the 7/7 or 9/11 attacks is quite clear in it's meaning - he references how people have been turned to Extremist acts because of a twisted world view purporting that the West is against Islam, so yes, he did reference Islamic conspiracy theorists - however, you are trying to distort it and not only that, but add into it something he never even said.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

It is clear from the above statement that he is saying that those who later carried out terrorist attacks were initially converted to the extremist cause because they were fed lies about their place in the world and the West's apparent crusade against Islam. This is clear when you read the text of the speech.

Which is ironic, because this references the peddling of lies as the root of people turning to extremism. You yourself are peddling lies, so kind of proving the point that you are saying he is (but isn't) making....

So, hats off to you for totally distorting a single line of text and twisting it beyond comprehension.

a reply to: karl 12

"David Cameron Says Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS."

So essentially people who keep an open mind or like to think for themselves are being tarred with the same brush as ISIS???

Cameron you are nothing more than an excrement stain on the lapel of the British people! Why don't you do yourself and the rest of our nation a great big solid by opening both your wrists!

So funny -

9/11, pedophilia rings, deliberate banking crashes, false flag attacks, phony war premises, corruption, funneling taxpayer money, corporate bribes, media propaganda, gag orders on malaysian airliners, CIA in ukraine, US funding anti-assad forces, oil pipeline deals, warmongering against countries who bank differently, sleeping with the saudis, selling out resources to the chinese, destroying the middle class, giving european sovereignties to regional authority, preventing auditing of the federal reserve, destroying "7 countries in 5 years", these things aren't dangerous...

but exposing them is. If something falls out of a cow its cow#. If it falls out of David Cameron, its bull#

a reply to: andy06shake

But he never actually said that....

I will ask again, did anyone even listen to the speech or read the transcript I posted?

Honestly, ATS... Even though he never actually said what it is that is being claimed, you are proving the point. Basing nonsense idea's off what someone else told you that someone else said, getting all worked up about it and, in this case, calling for him to kill himself...

Well done - you made his case for him!

a reply to: stumason

How can I misconstrue these quotes?

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.

So we shouldn’t stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism.

Where are you getting that ANY and ALL are simply remarks about Muslim conspiracy theorists? That is very inclusive to me.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
The internet has us all talking on things that make them NERVOUS, OF COURSE they want it stopped.

No. Internet is a wonderful tool. They control the media. Internet IS media.

The views of the establishment are dominant even on Internet.

They use technology to muzzle any dissenting voice, internet included.

How many people are hearing the dissenting voices. Very few. However they worry as the economy slips and unemployment gets out of control, a lot more will hear the dissenting voices.

So they want more explicit means now. Kill the dissenters.

a reply to: karl 12

I see this as an assault no on people but on the medium of distribution of information, in other words "the internet", in order to control information and what people can search to figure out the truth, the internet that is todays medium of information needs to be under the control of the watchful eyes of the enforcers.

a reply to: Frith

Yup, he is talking about extremism - at what point does he go on about conspiracy theorists being included in that? And also, you are taking that out of context - if you look at the other paragraph immediately prior to that, the quoted sentence of yours makes sense:

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.

So, what he is saying is that it isn't enough to simply tackle those who go out and carry out violent attacks, but we must also confront those who nominally shun violence (such as Anjem Choudary ) but still preach the lies and rhetoric that gives the ones pre-disposed to violence the excuse to carry it out.

It really is quite simple to understand, but of course if you insist on quoting out of context, picking the single lines you feel fit your argument and make the rest up, you will come to some warped conclusion..

Like I said, ironic really, as this is exactly what the "non-violent" but extremist preachers do to whip up the others into a frenzy in order to carry out violent acts.

a reply to: stumason

Well with statements like the one's he is coming away with its not that far a stretch for one to assume he obviously has an agenda that includes a war on freedom never mind ISIS. If that's the case it's a sad day indeed.

Like karl 12 suggested, the title says it all really. Cameron obviously doesn't want people to form there own opinions, but would rather have us select from the ones presented on CNN/BBC/SKY. And if they do then they are considered a threat, non violent or otherwise. But to use ISIS as a comparison that takes a special kind of moron or a very devious minded man with an agenda.

a reply to: stumason

The entire point of David's speech is to seek approval for the continued bombing of Iraq and stifle dissent against it. Something western governments have done for the past 23 years. Its total insanity and has only accomplished the horror we see today. He's a madman and you're trying to defend his message of continued killing, but I'll go back to what you're saying.

By tossing in the lines about "so called non-violent extremists" and equating them to conspiracy theorists while at the same time saying ANY and ALL forms of non violent extremism he is quite clear in his desire to silence dissent from anyone for his actions. Not just Muslim preachers.

I know you're never going to accept that being the message, but its quite clear.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Frith

Yup, he is talking about extremism - at what point does he go on about conspiracy theorists being included in that? And also, you are taking that out of context - if you look at the other paragraph immediately prior to that, the quoted sentence of yours makes sense:

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.

So, what he is saying is that it isn't enough to simply tackle those who go out and carry out violent attacks, but we must also confront those who nominally shun violence (such as Anjem Choudary ) but still preach the lies and rhetoric that gives the ones pre-disposed to violence the excuse to carry it out.

It really is quite simple to understand, but of course if you insist on quoting out of context, picking the single lines you feel fit your argument and make the rest up, you will come to some warped conclusion..

Like I said, ironic really, as this is exactly what the "non-violent" but extremist preachers do to whip up the others into a frenzy in order to carry out violent acts.

The 911 truthers are definitely not in the class of Anjem Chaudary.

Cameron is clearly talking about people dissenting from "official" or "dictated" view.

It is about policing the expressions of people and penalizing a person for having an independent opinion. This is what BIG BROTHER is.

Conspiracy theories abound when you have a duplicitous ("lying") government, with a lamestream media in their back pocket. Especially like Team Obama in the U.S., which can't explain what really happened in Benghazi, let alone why their cover-story was so stupid as to be laughable. Conspiracy theorists are now the sane ones - the gov. and its media shills, "crazy and hostile".

HINT: When your own government looks like the-blind-leading-the-blind, and their back-pocket media distorts the news by focusing on trivia or the only (tiny) positive aspect of a gov. story, the public will naturally seek out other media sources with more details and more Truth.

www.veteranstoday.com...
(July 2013) NEW STUDIES: 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS' SANE; GOV. DUPES CRAZY, HOSTILE
"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events."

www.theguardian.com...
(2014) CONSPIRACY THEORIES USED TO BE JUST FOR ECCENTRICS - BUT NOW INCLUDE SANE AND SENSIBLE PEOPLE
"There are very good reasons to be sceptical about the motives and veracity of western governments and media outlets, up to a point. But those who automatically question the BBC or CNN are remarkably credulous when it comes to other sources. At best, this means retweeting an unsourced meme without checking it’s true; at worst, it means endorsing propaganda. The wildest theories about MH17 and Islamic State didn’t originate with plucky keyboard warriors but the state medias of Russia and Iran."

Besides, conspiracies arise around controversial topics which TPTB:

1) Only offer a rambling and non-sensical "explanation" that really explains nothing.

2) Omit so many key details that their "explanation" has enough holes to drive a truck thru.

3) Make up something they consider "plausible" (as in "plausible denial"), but which really requires believing that TPTB are either incredibly dense or lying.

EXAMPLE OF #3: I've been tangling with one Moderator over some Black Ops projects. He firmly believes that if a gov. project is really Black Ops, then there is absolutely nothing about it on the Internet. Nothing. Nowhere. Never. Because the gov. is SO GOOD at totally erasing anything and everything from the Internet that they don't like.

And you wonder how conspiracy theories start, with "official explanations" like that?!?

You know what else is dangerous?

Forgetting about your kid and leaving them in a pub.

If governments don't want people nosing around their business, perhaps they should be more transparent to public view and not engage in efforts many would consider nasty.

Secrecy breeds paranoia... and governments swing through phases of secrecy.

There is certainly a large portion of business going on in this world that the average citizen has no clue about... now more than ever.

With the oddness around the JFK assassination and the obvious presence of UFOs despite blanket denials, the modern conspiracy theorist is simply an aware individual mistrustful of the frequently puerile, yet condescending, "party line."

Of course, paranoia breeds more paranoia and some CT's have lost the narrative completely... but more transparency is absolutely necessary, along with public interest/awareness, for any sort of society like most of us would want to live in.

If a strong movement in the public arena is eroding faith in government... there are good reasons for it, and the reasons rest with the governments.

a reply to: Baddogma

Great post! And I totally agree: If governments want to tamp down so many Conspiracies popping up, they need to stop feeding the conspiracies by acting so juvenile - pouty-offended one minute, name-calling haters the next, or arrogant "I just can't tell you 'cause you're not important enough" the next. Putting out more information that makes sense is the best (only?) way to defuse the conspiracy theories before they start.

And the media can do their part too, by putting out stories that are NOT sensationalized by hyperbole and manipulated "suggestions." Here's a great example I read this morning on Newser. The author, Matt Cantor, is really good at putting out enough information (even in a mini-article), that people can read and be satisfied with, since there will really be no "answer" in our current lifetimes:

www.newser.com...
OUR MAGNETIC POLES COULD SWAP SOONER THAN WE THOUGHT

But read his quick article. No sensationalism, just the facts. And witty, intelligent writing is better than sensationalism-designed-to-manipulate any day.

a reply to: karl 12

Non-Violent Conspiracy Theorists Are Just As Dangerous As ISIS? - David Cameron

FALSE!

We question everything, do our research and come to conclusions that scare you.

a reply to: karl 12

Yeah because people sitting around discussing Theories is just as bad as sick demented people who run around chopping peoples heads off because they don't believe what they do. That kind've reminds me of a good quote about Guns. "If the people who owned guns were as harmful, nutty, and crazy as the anti-gun people would lead us to believe, then their would be no anti-gun people. (Because the gun people would have killed them)