Alex Jones on "The View" (Video Linked)

reply to post by ararisq


Has anyone here considered that perhaps this is a form of combative guerrilla media warfare. That they knew that Charlie Sheen having some sort of public controversy would grab the media spotlight. And, considering some of his most shocking comments were made on the Alex Jones Show, this sort of sucked the TMZ and Entertainment Tonight viewing audiences into the realm of Infowars, ATS, MediaMatters and Salon.com. A sort of cross over between the mind-warping reality of 24hour digestible infotainment and the almost exclusively internet-based alternative and conspiracy-related media.

This could be an ingenious set up, using the modern entertainment apparatus that controls and blindfolds so many people to wake those very people up to these heretofore all but buried stories of the WTC7 sort.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

For one thing, this web site's outrageous assertions of, "US military tightening around Libya" making it sound like Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union when I can see it's the whole flipping world denouncing Qadaffi's brutality. Egypt isn't swimming in 140,000 refugees from Libya because they're on vacation and Indian warships aren't off the Libyan coast for the fishing. Infowars seems to have forgotten to mention anything about that whole UN vote condemning Qadaffi, but then their goal is to peddle abject paranoia, not objective facts.

This is why I think people have a problem with the type of information that you offer: you don't seem to be denying that the US is tightening their military hold over Libya, but you criticize infowars for sensationalizing it. But is any other news outlet saying that the US military has landed? I went to the CNN website just as an example, and one of the headlines is "Will US intervene in Libya" www.time.com... which links to a time article. So while CNN and TIME are asking "if" the US will invade Libya, infowars is saying they already did. And you don't seem to deny this outright, just that it is sensationalized to make it seem like Nazi, Germany. So infowars is giving us the news no one else will, and you seem to agree that at least on the surface what they are saying is true, but you still condemn them?

Then you say

Egypt isn't swimming in 140,000 refugees from Libya because they're on vacation and Indian warships aren't off the Libyan coast for the fishing.

So from this obscure comment you seem to imply that you would want the US to intervene militarily in a foreign country? Further indicating that you do not deny the infowars article but you just criticize their angle. Then you try to further criticize infowars by saying they ignored the UN condemning Qadaffi, so that automatically means the US should invade their country because the UN condemns them? Since when has the US taken marching orders from the UN? So basically you believe the US is the world's police man? That's fine, you seem to have traditional right wing theories, which also makes sense as to why you distrust infowars, but what motivates you to go on an active campaign against infowars? That is my only real question.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by ararisq

 

Has anyone here considered that perhaps this is a form of combative guerrilla media warfare. That they knew that Charlie Sheen having some sort of public controversy would grab the media spotlight. And, considering some of his most shocking comments were made on the Alex Jones Show, this sort of sucked the TMZ and Entertainment Tonight viewing audiences into the realm of Infowars

Alex Jones says that this is like Judo, they throw a controversy at them and they use that energy and redirect it at its source. Instead of blowing up in Sheen or Jones' face, it blew up in the establishment's face.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Drudge Report's demo is pro-Bush/pro-Republican so don't be expecting a sudden in-rush of to-be-converted's from that corner either.

I was a pro-Bush / pro-Republican, but I have always had a foot in the door of the alternative but in the past few years I have definitely jumped the Bush/Republican ship, I'm swimming toward Ron Paul but frankly at this point being eaten by a shark or drowning seems more likely (and preferable to remaining on either USS RNC or USS DNC).

Originally posted by filosophia
This is why I think people have a problem with the type of information that you offer: you don't seem to be denying that the US is tightening their military hold over Libya, but you criticize infowars for sensationalizing it. But is any other news outlet saying that the US military has landed? I went to the CNN website just as an example, and one of the headlines is "Will US intervene in Libya"

There's no mystery for why that's the case. This whole report came from some "anonymous Libyan diplomat who requested not to be identified" and was reported in a minor Pakistani newspaper, and which in turn was picked up by Alex Jones and rewritten with an extra large dosage of abject paranoia to make it look like he discovered it. No other news source, not Al Jazeera nor even any of the other Pakistani papers are picking up the story, so until it's confirmed by, well, anything, I call bullsh*t. For one thing, why the heck would a Libyan diplomat want to remain anonymous about announcing foreigners are invading his country?

That's not to say nobody has special forces in the area at all. The UK recently sent in the SAS to rescue some British oil workers out of that mess. The reason why India sent warships there is almost certainly for the same reason. Alex Jones doesn't give a flip about any of that- he just wants to milk this whole thing to get you all paranoid over his New World Order boogeymen regardless of what the truth is.

So from this obscure comment you seem to imply that you would want the US to intervene militarily in a foreign country?

What I do or do not support is immaterial to Alex Jones' deliberately instigating false public unrest for his own financial gain or his coming onto the View to peddle his Infowars web site.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


There is a thread on this link

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Hillary Clinton warns of 'drawn-out civil war' in Libya as U.S. sends in its warships

This dailyuk article confirms what infowars is saying, yet you still believe that infowars is lying?

Did you read my following comment? that maybe it IS that they ARE FRIENDS, & perhaps that it is a good thing he is supporting him.

guess not.

& there does come a point to when a friend who is out of control needs to deal with their problem, not enabled!
I don't believe Alex Jones is/was enabling.. I really don't know the details nor do I care.

The whole world is coming apart at the seams, it's about getting TRUTH out. stop focusing on things that do not matter. please.

Originally posted by tsloan
reply to post by 0731JLVR

 

Alex Jones blind support only comes from the fact that he has been a friend of Sheens for a number of years...kinda like your blind comment...

Originally posted by filosophia
Hillary Clinton warns of 'drawn-out civil war' in Libya as U.S. sends in its warships

This dailyuk article confirms what infowars is saying, yet you still believe that infowars is lying?

Yes because there's nothing in this article that confirms what Infowars is saying. Infowars is trying to get you to believe the US is plotting to instigate a war in Libya. This article is saying everyone in the world (the US, the UK, France, Canada, Switzerland, even Russia) are trying to get Qaddafi to step down but they're still trying to hash out how to do it. It's entirely Jones' Ministry of Propaganda who's spouting anything about any US war in Libya. What really annoys me is that those Infowars perverts distort all the reports to make it look like Qaddafi is preparing to defend himself againt the US when it's obvious he's referring to the rebels trying to kick down his door.

I thought you would have learned your lesson about believing anything Jones says after all his previous, "US wants to instigate a war in Iran" spiel. Yep, that was a nasty conflict, wasn't it?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Stuxnet, killing Iranian scientists, that sounds like acts of war to me.

The mainstream media uses "unnamed officials" who wish to remain anonymous as well, so don't pretend that infowars is the only one to do that. The mainstream media also fear mongers: Bin Laden, the CIA creation, "terrorists" hiding behind every bush. The mainstream media also distorts the truth. So if you're going to distrust infowars you better distrust the mainstream as well, that's all.

this is awesome on so many levels. go ALEX!! LOL

Originally posted by Xerxes1434
I'm sure Alex Jones being associated with a drug addicted alcoholic thats a wife beater and womanizer will really help the 9/11 Truth Movement

oooh whats you're source for that? National Enquirer? ET? US Weekly?

I take back anything I've said about Alex Jones. I think I just became a fan!

You know they were told by their producers, "only talk about Sheen. DO NOT let him talk about banks or 9-11!"

Way to keep it real Alex!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I'm amazed this is the first mention of this "episode" that occured. Or maybe it happened a long time ago.
I couldn't believe what Jones did in that crowd. Stuff like what he did, makes him look pretty stupid, in my view at least.
I hope I can see this "The View" video. Hopefully this guy rants his own self into oblivion.

Originally posted by Xerxes1434
I'm sure Alex Jones being associated with a drug addicted alcoholic thats a wife beater and womanizer will really help the 9/11 Truth Movement

Excellent, excellent!!
I thought Alex was "against" all these "talk shows" like "the View" and "Joy Brahar". Good to see he's watering himself down to make some more cash by spreading himself thin over all the media he can "hijack"

That show studio and those old women look straight from the 90's or even 80's.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...or pick your own. It's interesting that I'm posting this waiting while YOU check out of this thread. Of course.

Sorry Dave. I dont get paid to sit on this site and others and post, like you. I have a job and have bills. I also have a social life. I also dont sit with anticipation of the next post you make, so I can continue a discussion only to have you eventually derail it.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience of my job differing from yours.

ORRR, I'll call you on your bluff. Please post an example where I posted something that was incorrect. Pick any topic that I covered...

-the 100+ eyewitness accounts of people who saw the passenger jet strike the Pentagon
-the NYFD deputy fire chief who reported on the condition of WTC 7
-the myriad photos I posted of of steel recovered from the WTC complex
-The 9/11 commission report stating Bush authorized a shoot down order
-the fact that the WTC was built out of aluminum and steel
-the phone calls out of flight 77
-OR, as in the case of this thread, Alex Jones being a paranoid crackpot that you people really need to distance yourselves from

Ok. Ill pick the first one you mentioned.
-the 100+ eyewitness accounts of people who saw the passenger jet hit strike the Pentagon.
(Below is your post with the link to the witness's you wish to bring into this discussion)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You again bring it into discussion later in the same thread at this post....just itching for someone to catch you on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now in this post, I point out the testimony of YOUR witness list that contradicts with what you claim all those witness's say.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Other people such as OuttaTime pointed out things in the posts following, as well.
The only rebuttal you have, is to point out ONE error that I made out of ALL those witness's. ONE ERROR.
Then you proceed to use a 'Play On Words' with the other ones.

So Dave...here you go.
And again, sorry I dont have a job that pays me to sit on this forum, like some others have.
But none-the-less...my point has been made.

reply to post by ararisq


...we got the tsa stickin their hands down peoples pants..infowars.com covers all of this... I love how he snuck that little tidbit in there. I dont know what to think of alex. is he in it for the money?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

There is a thread on this link

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Hillary Clinton warns of 'drawn-out civil war' in Libya as U.S. sends in its warships

This dailyuk article confirms what infowars is saying, yet you still believe that infowars is lying?

If truthers say big brown bears are dangerous then Good ole dave will go out and try to hug them.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Stuxnet, killing Iranian scientists, that sounds like acts of war to me.

If you're attempting to claim Alex Jones was referring to the Stuxnet worm attack against the Iranian nuclear program in his "imminent war with Iran" gloom and doom then you're lying through your teeth. You know this and so do I. He's doing literally the exact same Chicken Little routine predicting the sky is about to fall with this "imminent war with Libya" routine as he did with his "imminent war with Iran" routine. This time next month he'll be spreading gloom and doom over an "imminent war" with some other country. Heck, I'm still waiting for the "imminent war" Bush was supposed to instigate with China over the spy plane affair.

Dude, you asked me how Infowars is mongoring in irrational paranoia and ludicrous conspiracies and I showed you. What's with all this constant grasping at excuses for Alex Jones' behavior, anyway? Noone is telling you that you can't wallow in 9/11 conspiracies AND keep your distance from that Alex Jones crackpot. They're not mutually exclusive.

The mainstream media uses "unnamed officials" who wish to remain anonymous as well, so don't pretend that infowars is the only one to do that. The mainstream media also fear mongers: Bin Laden, the CIA creation, "terrorists" hiding behind every bush. The mainstream media also distorts the truth. So if you're going to distrust infowars you better distrust the mainstream as well, that's all.

You have this annoying penchant to steer the topic off to irrelevent tangents when you know you're losing the debate. I will say again, Infowars didn't write this, the Pakistani Observer did. Infowars ripped it off and rewrote it with a falsified paranoid viewpoint and presented it as if they wrote it and the Pakistani Observer is corroborating it. Besides, it isn't the case that the mainstream media isn't picking up this story of a US invasion. It's the case that NOONE ELSE is picking up the story of a US invasion. Al Jazeera would have been all over this story and not even they are going with it.

I will likewise admit that Alex Jones didn't write this article, but YOU must likewise admit this abject paranoia is right up Alex Jone's alley, so it really makes no difference.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
If truthers say big brown bears are dangerous then Good ole dave will go out and try to hug them

Don't be childish. If truthers said big brown bears are dangerous then I would research on my own whether or not big brown bears were in fact dangerous becuase I've learned it is foolish to take anything coming from the truthers at face value. From the disingenuous way Alex Jones and the rest of those con artists operate, "dangerous big brown bears" probably refer to teddy bears secretly being installed with evil gov't RFIDs.

I'm not here to play these word games, dude. I'm here to point out that associating yourself with Alex Jones doesn't make him look good by association. It makes YOU look bad by association. Nobody is stating that distancing yourself from Jones means you can't still be a conspiracy mongor.