Is ATS a conspiracy site, or what?

I know this has been talked about before under different circumstance...

but, in the light of the recent London bombings and the responses from mods on varying threads covering this event, I am asking just exactly what is expected of members posting at a time like this.

I have seen certain members dissed by mods for questioning reponsibilty of the attacks solely on the grounds that the body count was evolving and that there was some insensitivity shown by speculating upon the events as they unfolded.

My problem is this.. there obviously seems to be a period of time when (through comments and actions of certain mods) some are unwilling to contemplate investigation (contrary to the official line) based solely on sensitivity to the families and friends of those who may have been injured or killed.

Understanding the fact that mods are 'people too' and that those in or near the 'center of the storm' are more emotionally charged than others who are living on the other side of the globe, there still needs to be a clarification of policy regarding what may or may not be speculated upon and when.

Does this loosely imposed ban on free thinking extend only to those countries who may be 'Friends or Partners of the Coalition' or does this also extend to countries who have been recently tagged 'the enemy' such as France, Canada or Isreal?

I'm not going to bother with the links on this subject because the threads I'm talking about are contemporary and have led the 'New Posts' for 24 hours now.

I enjoy ATS primarily because of the ability to post theories which counter the official statements and to bring such conspiracy related thoughts to ground through intelligent dialoque and professional debunking.

I would hope this is still the foremost function of ATS and not the beginnings of censorship.

ATSNN is an important part of ATS. Many people come to ATS via this forum. As we saw yesterday many people come to the news forum FOR their news. Period. This is a good thing.

I believe you were refering to me about the body count. My post was saying that it was a tragedy even if 1 person had died, nothing about censorship. The only thing that is targeted is blatent racism. Which I'm sure you can agree has no place on this site.

I hope that clears this up.

Originally posted by intrepid
ATSNN is an important part of ATS. Many people come to ATS via this forum. As we saw yesterday many people come to the news forum FOR their news. Period. This is a good thing.

I believe you were refering to me about the body count. My post was saying that it was a tragedy even if 1 person had died, nothing about censorship. The only thing that is targeted is blatent racism. Which I'm sure you can agree has no place on this site.

I hope that clears this up.

I did not mean you at all, Intrepid...I'm more concerned about a general response and do not wish to pick individuals.
especially not a respected canuckle like yourself.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by masqua]

Actually, I think you really do need to produce some links - better, it would be nice if you just quoted the moderator comments, because without being able to see what comments you are referring to - how can anyone make comment to your implications that there has been attempts to suppress certain speech?

I would very much like to see examples if you don't mind. There is a specific reason I am asking for this, because in the past 24 hours a member who has been wildly speculating with no foundation has accused me of "insulting" him because I recommended he think in less of an ego-centric fashion.

See - just because somebody doesn't agree with wild jumps to conclusions that have nothing but a paranoid basis to them, and no evidence, and even though some one may voice their distaste at said speculation in the midst of real-life human trajedy, is NOT censorship. Nor is it some form of oppression or even power-playing.

As I responded to the thin-skinned person in my situation - why is it that the same people who so freely lob accusations against governments and organizations and peoples are the same people who cannot grow the callouses of maturity to take opposing views or statements of opinions at their illogical behavior?

Why is that?

Anyway - I look forward to seeing examples.

There were a couple of instances yesterday, but in the main I thought things were conducted in a mostly civilised manner, not like on some sites I was on yesterday.
Things were obviously a bit strained yesterday, and I did have a bit of beef with a temporary withdrawl by a Mod, but it was resolved, and I have spoken to the Mod in question today, and there were no afters.

All in all, I think yesterday showed how good ATS can really be. There are many people with many differing viewpoints. Many people don't agree with one another, but that tends to make for lively discussion as opposed to outright hostility, for the most part.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
There were a couple of instances yesterday, but in the main I thought things were conducted in a mostly civilised manner, not like on some sites I was on yesterday.
Things were obviously a bit strained yesterday, and I did have a bit of beef with a temporary withdrawl by a Mod, but it was resolved, and I have spoken to the Mod in question today, and there were no afters.

All in all, I think yesterday showed how good ATS can really be. There are many people with many differing viewpoints. Many people don't agree with one another, but that tends to make for lively discussion as opposed to outright hostility, for the most part.

That thread stood out particularly in light of what i'm thinking...I was about to reply to it when it was suddenly deleted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree that ATS handled things well, all in all...but I'm still wondering what is correct to post and when...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really...I'm not out to 'get' some mod I disagree with...for the most part I believethe admin, mods and counsellors are the best I've seen online.

I just think there should be a qualification made on official ATS reaction to perceived 'silly' notions put forth as threads. Once again...I'm placing these threads in here unwillingly bbecause I don't want to point fingers, but Valhall, I repect your contributions so much I cannot deny your request.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by masqua]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by masqua]

We are a "conspiracy site" by all definitions... however, the personality of ATS tends not to the the typical "jump to any and all conclusions" of nearly all other online conspiracy-themed destinations.

Wild speculation popular on many other such Internet sites tends to work against the "conspiracy community". Outlandish ideas and theories with tenuous (at best) evidence will only end up discrediting the efforts of all conspiracy theorists. Hopefully, a more sober approach from the Internet's largest online community for the discussion of conspiracy (and alternative) topics will help in some small way to improve the public perception. Hence... the multifaceted motto of "deny ignorance".

If I may be allowed to be so bold, I'd like to put forth my opinion on what this is referring to. I know I read no least than one thread yesterday which was playing out in the manner referred to here--the OP started going on about who might be involved, etc., and the mods got onto him about it given the closeness to the event.

I don't see it as censorship--at least not in a completely bad way--myself. There's a time for trying to investigate, trying to figure out who's behind what, and there's a time for condolences and silence. I'm sure there's more than a couple members here who were deeply and directly affected by what happened yesterday, and for people to jump straight in about how Bush was behind it with his Reptilian Gaurd can be quite distasteful to someone who might have lost a family member or friend.

I believe I was reading the thread that Khieu is referring to, and I'll admit that I found it a little too much for the moment as well, even though it didn't directly affect me at all. If I'm not mistaken, it was the thread discussing how Al-Qaeda is fictional. It's an interesting idea, but I think the timing was terrible. Instead of being compassionate, all it appeared to me to be doing was using a bad event to draw attention to a theory, and that was inappropriate in my opinion.

I know that the first reaction to any kind of tragedy--personal or otherwise--is to seek vengeance from those who committed the act. When 9/11 happened, it didn't take long for people of all walks to start agreeing that we needed to turn some country into a parking lot. But at the same time, the primary concern of everyone (that I knew at least) was what was going on at ground zero, and how we might be able to help. Not who was really behind it--that's something to figure out a little later when the dust has settled and rational thought isn't as difficult.

Also, you need to remember that, as much freedom as we may have here, it's still a privately run site. If Simon gets a wild hair and decides that, from this point forward, all discussion needs to be about albino rabbits, there isn't anything we can do about it except find another site.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We are a "conspiracy site" by all definitions... however, the personality of ATS tends not to the the typical "jump to any and all conclusions" of nearly all other online conspiracy-themed destinations.

Thank you, SO for your succint and lucid response...it encapsulates my point in that you mention the 'personality' of ATS.
I believe that this personality is shaped and formed by admin as well as through the comments of moderators, counsellors and members who have been here long enough to have an effect upon the rest of us 'near newbies'.

I do not consider this to be a negative...rather it is a massive positive for this site.

Would it not be beneficial to have a tacid understanding of what is considered a measured response to insensitivity? This is not news here, since I remember a similar quandary which came about through the Stanton Friedman interview.

I know this is really a nickle and dime beef, and hardly deserves mention.

I too was disturbed by the banning and removing of threads on this subject.

I am english and I am furious over the bombings, I do not see how a debate on who is responsible is a negative things on this subject. To say Al Queda definatly did it is just as dumb as saying that they definatly did not. So far there is very little evidence either way. Only if you presume the conventional wisdom over 9-11, Madris etc would you come to the assumption that Al Queda was responsible.

Maybe they were, maybe not. But we deserve an honest and serious debate on the subject, to suggest Al Queda does not exist is not an insult to the people injured or lost family members in the attack. A refusal to demand the truth and evidence to back up claims is an insult to those injured and lost in this attack.

Deny ignorance! Says it right there doesn't it!

MMMM, Ok

jUST for the record... If another bomb goes off in Oklahoma city... (like the Murrah Bombing) and kills me...
I give everyone permission to question who was responsible from minute one of the incident...
If I am dead, I would want those responsible to be punished...
I would forgive anyone whos opinion was wrong, as long as they were asking questions... and attempting to "deny ignorance"

Now as this analogy unfolds... Let us consider the fact of the recent civil suit against the FBI for using agent provocatuers to instigate the bombing. The undercover agent that was jailed for her comments has agreed to testify...

the FBI is refusing a judges order to release pertaining documents about the investigation and use of undercover agents at elohim city.

IMO that several people would still be alive, if people asked the right questions from the begining and not allowed a decade or more of coverup.

So regardless of what the mods say or feel... I hope they respect my opinion as someone who has been hit close to home. I will say or conjecture anything that might help get the bad guys...

in case my analogy has inspired any inquirers...
seek and ye shall find:

FBI connections that took 10 years to come out
the layout of the coverup
Policeman dead from coverup

[edit on 8-7-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

An important facet of this issue is the assumption that those speculating about the true perpetrators behind these acts are devoid of emotion or sympathy, and are not respecting those affected by the tragedies. On the contrary, there are many, including myself, who feel VERY emotional about the entire issue. I too have friends and a family member in London. Being an Australian, if I'd lost a family member in Bali you can be damn sure that I would be asking some pressing questions that very same day.

When a tragedy like this occurs, it is natural for people to feel righteous anger against those who carried it out. Who one believes those parties are is one's own personal opinion and choice. IMO, in light of events in the last decade or two, the theory that elements within or behind our nations' governments were the perpetrators is just as valid as the theory that Islamic extremists were, and if one meme is to be temporarily quashed for the sake of respect, it is only fair that the other should too.

The notion that wishing to discover the true perpetrators of this crime and not accepting the government's explanation is disrespecting the victims is akin to stating that attempting to bring JFK's true killers to justice is disrespecting JFK. In fact, the opposite is true. Although the mainstream media keeps it nicely out of sight, there is a growing movement of families of the victims of 9-11 who are fighting tooth and nail to have independent investigations made into the U.S. government's role in the attacks. Would anyone have the nerve to say to their faces that they are disrespecting their own belated loved ones by asking what really happened that day? If on that very day, as they watched the towers collapse killing their loved ones, they had concluded that the government was behind it and with tears of rage in their eyes wanted angry justice, would we then tell them to show some respect for the victims and to believe the government's story?

I know I wouldn't.

Wild, irresponsible speculation about the events of yesterday benefit no one but the enemy and only divert public attention away from what is important and that is to find those responsible. Most of us won't be able to participate in that effort, but we can take the time to inform ourselves about the events and the evidence as it mounts. Using these events to flog political dead horses, as in this case, is the last thing any responsible individual should be about:

Originally posted by "poster's name deleted"
One thing is for sure, the only group who benefits from this tradgedy is the Bush administration. They are desperate to keep England's troops in Iraq and desperate to get traitor and criminal Karl Rove's name out of the headlines.

[edit on 2005/7/8 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by "poster's name deleted"
One thing is for sure, the only group who benefits from this tradgedy is the Bush administration. They are desperate to keep England's troops in Iraq and desperate to get traitor and criminal Karl Rove's name out of the headlines.

Grady, Are you saying that the Bush administration didn't benifit from the attacks?

If I'm not mistaken, the day after the facts, he has gotten new and renewed allegience in his war on terror from several if not all G8 members and other nations.

Spain luckely is more carefull in its promisses and promisses the UK their allegiance in finding the cullprits.

thematrix....
Did the Bush administration benefit from the Madrid bombings?
Did not the Spanish government pull its troops from Iraq as a result of the bombings?

The problem here is the deceptive use of the general word "benefits".
You see, the UK was committed to stay along side the US and other Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite whether the tragic London bombings occurred or not. The attack did not solidify this notion, therefore, there was no "benefits".

Also, amazing to see the rhetorical use of the word "desperate".
How was the US "desperate" to keep UK troops in Iraq, when they were staying 'the course' anyhow? We are talking roughly 8000 UK troops versus roughly 138,000 US troops, not including Coalition numbers. Where is "desperate" in that equation?

Simple political rhetoric used at the expense of the tragic events and deaths that occurred from the London bombings that was better left in the proper forum it belonged in: PTS.





seekerof

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Are you saying that the Bush administration benefits from the murder of innocents in London by these scumbags? Would you say, as the poster did that only the Bush administration benefited from the bombing? Would you say that Islamic fundamentalists are doing their murderous best to enhance the popularity of the Bush administration or to further the case for war in Iraq and elsewhere? Just what would you posit in the wake of this disaster?

On CNN yesterday they had UK Ambassoder and he said that he believes that Blair will benfit from this disaster because it will ralley the UK people behind him and give him more support for the war. Just like what happened on 9/11.

Im not saying I agree with these and my condolences go out to the UK people.

Although it is my opinion that 'Al Q' has, as it's main goal, the drawing of the West into a war in the Middle East, and thereby leave itself open to an attack from an unexpected source (ie. China), the purpose in this thread was initially to discuss the ability for ATS members to post theories and ideas on conspiracies.

I'm suggesting that we should be able to express our wildest notions without responses such as thread deletion for what seemed at the time to be... emotional.

Discourse on such a hot button topic such as the London bombings should be handled delicately by everyone, including mods AND members. Like I stated earlier, there was precedence in the Stanton Freidman interview and perhaps we need to discuss this.

Masqua, don't worry about it. We'll get back to kicking you Limey's in the teeth again, but right now, we'd prefer a break in it. It wasn't too long ago when we had a hard hit in Manhatten, and some wanted to start in on the wild flights of fantasy that very evening. We Yanks understand a bit about the need for a little mourning and politeness for a little while. Seeing how we've all but taken over this Limey board, that is our decision!

Seriously, wait a few more hours and you'll see a bit of a change. This pause also gives folks a little time to think over the events and post more intelligently rather than knee-jerkingly spout, "Bush and Cheney did it!"

heh...thanks TC...what doesn't knock teeth out makes them stronger.

I understand the 'sensitivity issue', and as a Canadian am a 'pillar of politeness' when it comes to such things.

I'm just concerned this may be a 'false flag' operation, and in waiting we are giving the scum a chance to skedaddle while we glare at innocent Muslim women and children wondering what their husbands and fathers were up to Thursday.

On as side note, I see this issue is spreading:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I direct your attention to the 3rd post in this thread started by The Shroud of Memphis.



[edit on 9-7-2005 by masqua]