American Conspiracy theories

[shutupandshave]

Or more accurately, conspiracy theories about America...

I've read my fair share of conspiracy theories in my time, almost all of which prove themselves to be untrue somewhere in the middle (and then because Bush flew to Florida in a 757 instead of a 767 we can fairly assume that he was in love with XXXXX because she was 67 and not 57 - or something equally untrue)... however there are often elements of conspiracy theories which are interesting (at least to me).

I've heard a few times that the US government is trying to SCARE the public. How real do you think that is. Do you think there is any evidence that the Bush et al. are trying to worry the US citizens in either a bid to get votes or to take away certain freedoms.

I've heard it said that the US government was responsible for all of 9/11, and from some others that they were just responsible for the pentagon crash...
Perhaps not, however perhaps it IS the government that started these conspiracy theories. Certainly the thought of a super-secret organisation that controls the current government, or a group that has access to these super-weapons is more frightening than an Afghan rebel that got lucky... and who would be the man to find them out...

Anyway - Bush....do you think he uses terror tactics to win the election?

[JADezimar]

Dont you think Maybe Kerry also used them ?

[/<yle]

I dont think Bush used terror tactics to win the election. Personally, i wasent impressed with either. However, Bushes stance on Abortion was probably the ONLY stance i agreed with. Thats why i voted for him. Personally, you only live once, why be afraid?

[shutupandshave]

Dont you think Maybe Kerry also used them ?
Not that I saw no, but then I didn't see all the adverts from either candidate... however that wasn't really the question.

[LardGibs]

Both sides (political parties) value winning more than truth. Given that political operatives are not a monoculture and yet there can be only two groups, both groups have bad actors to call upon, like swift boat veterans for truth or dan rather and national guard service documents.

Somebody trained in logic could probably prove that if they desire power so greatly, there must be a reason for it and therefore it's the massive amounts of money they control, not civic duty that drives them to it.

The only link to reality is that they depend on the American electorate to make the choice.

Any conspiracies I believe in are those of industry and government to control the forces of life itself, strip all freedoms and create a world of mindless consumers of whatever they are sold. Shit like that doesn't happen by accident, now does it? Global trade=conspiracy.

[JADezimar]

Yep I been reading a book on something like that o0

[MVB]

I think Bush lets people know about the truth.

This "conspiracy theory" is more just an accusation by the Kerry group that arose during the election. Bush goes "the world is dangerous, terrorists are still out there, and we need to keep going after them," so Kerry goes "he's trying to scare you into believing the world is a nasty place and you'll be hurt unless you vote Bush into office."

Frankly, if Bush were trying "scare" tactics he'd say things like "We hear there might be nukes in the hands of terrorists," or even "terrorists are at this moment ready to strike America."

Bush actually made mostly the statement that we are WINNING the war on terror, and that the threat of terror and such things is LOWER because of him, and that it will continue to go down, which sounds more like optimism and lack of fear than fear-promotion.

I would say there a) is no proof of him using terror tactics at all, because he did nothing to scare us, and I don't feel scared at all as a voter, nor did that enter into things for me (find what he said/did that somehow scared people into voting for him), and b) he actually uses the opposite -- a message of optimism; rather than going "oh the world is an evil horrible place and only with me will you not die," he goes "we're doing well, things are going well in the war on terror, and the future is bright," which isn't exactly a fear-mongering approach.

Cheney answered the question about that well, when asked if he and Bush were fear-mongering to win votes; he said "we're trying to be honest with the American people; when there are threats that we are informed about, we let them know; when the homeland security office hears about valid threats, he ups the terror warnings appropriately; we are optimistic however ... we think that the chances for bad things happening are going down, have gone down with us in office, and will continue to go down; so no, we are not fear mongering at all ... in fact, we think the American people have less reason to be afraid now than they did 4 years ago, and that they will be less afraid 4 years from now than they are today."

Or something like that, I may have not gotten it purely verbatim (words off here and there, nothing major).

[shutupandshave]

I saw a few polls of the reasons people voted. Most people voted for bush because of homeland security. It seems people WERE very afraid of this.

More people in the UK/Ireland have died from terrorist activity than in the US, and there have been many MANY more incidents of terrorism in the UK than in the US, yet life went on, and people didn't feel the need to press the issue.

http://files.free-collective.com/users/suas/invoke911.wmv

[DrunkenUno]

Peeeeenis

[Shackled Phoenix]

MVB, true enough bush is only telling the truth. But I do think that he was using that truth to convince people to vote for him. Is this wrong? not really, it was/is a very strong part of his policy.

More people in the UK/Ireland have died from terrorist activity than in the US, and there have been many MANY more incidents of terrorism in the UK than in the US, yet life went on, and people didn't feel the need to press the issue.

True enough, but 1. very little terrorist activity happened on our soil, so we still felt safe that as long as we were home nothing could happen. Now though even home is no longer safe. 2. We Americans have been fairly sheltered to it. We saw terrorism as scattered events on the news. Now though suddenly it has hit us that there are these terrorist networks out there, and that they do NOT like us. We're scared, and we're pissed.

[shutupandshave]

MVB, true enough bush is only telling the truth.
wait - MVB would never have said that - did he?....

Only telling the truth. If I tell you a lie, and you believe it, and tell everyone else - does that mean you're telling the truth? No, you're believing a lie.

Bush told the world there were WMD and there were not. He may have believed it but that doesn't make it the truth.

Bush may well have said lots of things that were true - but to claim EVERYTHING he said was the truth is not true, and unfortunately that's a fact.

[MVB]

I don't believe Bush knowingly lied to America.

I'm a little drunk at the moment; family pre-thanksgiving dinner so you know how that is

Oh, but anyway;
I think Americans valuing homeland security is NOT a sign of Americans being afraid; I think it's a sign that we want to be secure, and we feel Bush is a way to get there; I don't think that Bush himself actually said and did things to engender fear in Americans should they not vote for him; namely, he did state he'd make us more secure, but he never said "America will be less secure/more dangerous with Kerry at the helm," etc. etc. etc.

SO, I'm simply passing on the opinion that people are misreading the REASON Americans valued homeland security; that was a reason for my vote as well, although a small one, but it was not motivated by fear in any way.

So, I think you need to analyze the WHY, and I don't think it has to do with fear.

No doubt any politcian wishes to earn the vote, but I don't think fear had anything to do with the president acted, nor has anything to do with the way the president acts; so again, find me proof/evidence/etc. that the president is actively preying on fear; I think americans valuing security is not either a) related directly to fear, or b) a resulf of the president preying on our fears.

[shutupandshave]

I am sure that with access to news archives I could find you evidence where bush used fear as a weapon in speeches...

I cant find you concrete evidence that Bush is preying on fear, and doubt I ever could, unless the guy stood up and said that his government used those tactics deliberately.

What there is however, is a great number of intellectuals, both in the US and throughout the rest of the world, that have watched speeches, and attended speeches and have come to the conclusion that Bush was using fear as a weapon.

Just look at the ONLY ever AL-Q msg released by America - 3 days or so before the election... ALL the rest have been released by Al-Jahzeera... strange coincidence that.

[JADezimar]

What there is however, is a great number of intellectuals, both in the US and throughout the rest of the world, that have watched speeches, and attended speeches and have come to the conclusion that Bush was using fear as a weapon.

What individuals plz state this. And make sure there not a biast source.

Just look at the ONLY ever AL-Q msg released by America - 3 days or so before the election... ALL the rest have been released by Al-Jahzeera... strange coincidence that.

What messages ?

[shutupandshave]

Kerry, for example. There are many others - but feel free to respond about that.

The one from Bin Laden

[JADezimar]

Wow Kerry now thats a truly unbiast source :P

And which one from bin laden can you lay it out in words for me plz :)

[MVB]

Al Jhazeera released that bin Laden video, just like all the others, and the US reported it just like all the others; it received more attention b/c it was near election, but was spun against George Bush (see, he hasn't caught him even up until now)

[/<yle]

Seems like your arguement has a few holes in it Suas.

[shutupandshave]

Indeed it seems that way. I read that it was released by the US government this time.
Edit:<karma>NO, I am completely right. Faggot, why are we still talking about this...it's because you know I've won. See, I proved my point completely... check this link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363306/

JAD, if they disagree you will consider them biased...or lefty's or whatever...so I cannot give you any sources that support me and that you would consider unbiased.

[MVB]

It wouldn't have made sense for Bush to use that tape anyway; it hurt him more than it helped him, b/c it pointed out a big missing link in the war on terror .... one of the only missing links, really, since he's been so successful at demolishing terrorist groups around t he globe, including in Africa and other places.

[shutupandshave]

Bush has demolished terrorist groups in Africa? Which terrorist groups, and when?

[MVB]

I never thought to research it; I was talking to a special forces buddy of mine, and he mentioned strikes on terrorist bases in Africa. The important note, regardless of where or what was attacked, is that while people fixate on Iraq, American forces have been aggressively and successfully pursuing terrorists in every other venue possible. America acts covertly as well; I'm to be the best man for an ex-Navy Spec. Ops guy this July, and he's taken a bullet striking drug-related targets in South America. Wouldn't tell me much more than that, but he certainly carries the clear scar.

[shutupandshave]

Hehe, that reminds me of another story I know.

There are a lot of Afghan people that have supported the UK, and the UK support...however the American gunships are not making any differentiation between the Al-Q living in the mountains, and people that have lived there all their lives and never lifted a finger against the US. Anyway, because a lot of UK soldiers have personal experience with these friendly afghans, they have been sent in to try and get them to come down from the mountains. Well a friend of mine got called over to do this (he's not in the army anymore, and was just mucking around with another friend on a farm), which he was happy to do.

He gets dropped off and meets up with the people he is meant to meet up with. All is great. All of a sudden a gunship (not an apache I think) turns up, and starts firing on the position. Now as you know, these gunships can shoot something stupid like 1000 rounds a second, or a minute or something. So he radio's in and calls for help... and gets told that it will take 15 minutes. He tells them that they have exactly a minute to sort it out before he does. So anyway they start waving white flags - and all that stuff. To no avail.

So my friend takes out his gun (and it's his gun too, a scary thing - kind of elephant gun) and shoots and kills the gunner.

Anyway, I dont think bombing a few potential terrorists is the same as demolishing terrorist groups... I think sometimes you think Bush is better than he is, because you think he has done things he hasn't. It surprises me that you can use this information as argument when you aren't clear on what has happened. It also concerns me that you interpret strikes in Africa (which I know there has been) as the almost complete eradication of world terrorist organisations. ("one of the only missing links, really")

[JADezimar]

Anyway, I dont think bombing a few potential terrorists is the same as demolishing terrorist groups... I think sometimes you think Bush is better than he is, because you think he has done things he hasn't. It surprises me that you can use this information as argument when you aren't clear on what has happened. It also concerns me that you interpret strikes in Africa (which I know there has been) as the almost complete eradication of world terrorist organisations. ("one of the only missing links, really")

What saddens us is you think were only capable of 1 hot spot at a time. And that it takes large military exercises that the world knows about to catch terrorists. Which are generally well informed. I would think co-vert ops have a better chance.

[shutupandshave]

When did I say that JAD? Please dont put words in my mouth. I think I am quite aware of what the US military is capable of... I certainly seem to have similar views of it's power as you do.

I was complaining that there was no evidence backing up this claim. As you STILL seem to be arguing, I ask you - please find some evidence for me...

I want to see evidence of terrorist groups demolished (completely destroyed) all over the world since the war on terror begun.

I dont doubt for a second that the US has hurt many groups all over the world, I remember reading an article about how the US army was attacking terrorists in Africa recently. This is very different to demolising groups worldwide.

To stop yourself from being so sad you could stop getting upset about things I have never said.

[JADezimar]

>.< oi Suas

I love you.

But anywayz. Ya We may not have completely demolished Terror groups. But for that to be expected to be done already is kinda outrageuos. HItler almost conquered the world and hadnt nearly eliminated or eradicated the jews.

[shutupandshave]

Indeed, you may not have completely demolished terror groups, however it's very difficult to have a discussion about what people think, if people make generalisations about facts...
for example, if the US HAD almost eliminated ALL terrorist activity in the world, I would be VERY VERY wrong to criticise it's policies at all, however it had just hurt a few, and potentially made them angry, I could be very very right.

Small wording inaccuracies can make for some pretty big differences in what you're saying.

[JADezimar]

To just allow them to sit and grow. Will only give them more power to eventually spread like fungus.

[shutupandshave]

That is not the issue... the issue is, that I have been told that the US has demolished almost all terror groups worldwide by yourself and MVB... and that may well be true but I am asking for some kind of evidence of that - at the very least how you know? Your mate at school told you, what?
I know MVB's friend that there had been some bombing of terrorist organisations in Africa (which is common knowledge) but I see no link between a few bombings and the statement that terrorism has been almost completely wiped out (except for bin laden)

[Larsson7]

The question always exists - How do you wipe out a Terrorist group?

No matter how hard you try - these guys recruit through others dying! It would appear that plenty of people in the Middle East see giving their lives for their country a hugely heroic act.

They gain numbers from those whom they see as martyrs and have a gigantic marketplace for recruits. They are unlikely to turn people down who want to serve in the name of Allah.

The British tried many times to eradicate the IRA until they realised that everytime they killed/arrested and IRA member that 2 others would volunteer to take their place.

Killing off a group like that can never be completed by brute force.

[MVB]

since he's been so successful at demolishing terrorist groups around t he globe, including in Africa and other places.

That's actually what I said, which does not imply that he's destroyed nearly all terrorist groups around the world, but instead implies he's been "demolishing" and in that sense doing severe damage to the foundations of (sounds like a good def. of demolishing, at least as ?I meant it) various terror organizations globally ... it doesn't mean he's cleared the globe, at least not when I re-read myself; it means he's gaining ground against terrorists around the globe, as opposed to JUST in the mideast/afghanistan

[shutupandshave]

It wouldn't have made sense for Bush to use that tape anyway; it hurt him more than it helped him, b/c it pointed out a big missing link in the war on terror .... one of the only missing links, really, since he's been so successful at demolishing terrorist groups around t he globe, including in Africa and other places.
The quote in it's entirety. You did say that Bin laden is pretty much the last proper terrorist since Bush has been so successful at demolishing terrorist groups.

Demolished means destroyed, not hurt.

I agree he has gained ground on terrorists in many places, however I also disbelieve that he has demolished (a word for completely destroying) any terrorist groups at all, let alone terrorist groups all over the world.

[MVB]

Aye, he has demolished individual terrorist groups and cells. Please allow me the slight courtesy of being able to mean what I wish to mean, and not what you wish to translate my meaning as.

Also, "demolished" is defined as "torn down and broken up." Bush has successfully torn down and broken up terrorist organizations on a global scale, and that even includes al Quaeda, which has been effectively broken up in many locations.

[shutupandshave]

yup torn down and broken up = destroyed in my books.
If you tear down and break up a house - do you expect most of it, or even half of it to be there?

If I said to you "right I am going to demolish this house" would you expect it to still be functional after I had finished with it?

If a builder contracted someone to demolish a house, would the contractor be right to complain about not being paid because the house was there, and although slightly damaged - was still functional?

Anyway, so which terrorist groups has he torn down and broken up? We cant argue about the meaning of the word demolish till the cows come home.... however my questioning the world demolish was simply part of me asking which terrorists groups Bush has demolished, and where?
I can see no evidence that suggests that Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisation is ineffective now.

[MVB]

Al Quaeda has become highly ineffective; attacks on the United States = 0 since 9/11; I won't argue this with you, b/c I can already tell it's an argument that will get us nowhere, as we both have different opinions on the matter. The evidence is the lack of evidence; there exists no proof of further strong and effective operations by terrorist groups that we've been targeting; they are affirmatively on the defensive, and even Iraq is a victory against terrorism, b/c we've forced terrorists into a situation where they are attacking armed Americans capable of firing back (and Iraqi civillians getting in the way), RATHER than unsuspecting innocents across the globe.

[shutupandshave]

Al - Q attacks on the US before 9/11 = what - 2? ever?

Spain has been hit, Saudi Arabia has been hit, There have been hits all over the world - and continue to be.

I agree that the efforts in Iraq are hurting terrorists, especially because so many have apparently flocked there to fight against the Americans.

"Three years have now gone by since the September 11th attacks in 2001, and terrorism is a far greater threat to us now than it was then. The number and severity of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased dramatically, as has the number of active terrorists. Before 9/11, terrorism was confined to a small number of extremist individuals, loosely linked by radical Islam and hatred of Israel and its sole supporter, the USA. Now, many more moderate Muslims have become radicalized, world-wide, willing to kill innocent civilians in order to achieve their purposes. And the serious targets have expanded to include civilians in Russia, India, Maylasia, the Philippines, Spain, and elsewhere, as well as Israel and its sole supporter, the United States. "
- By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org

[MVB]

This should perhaps be a sign for everyone to step up, what he says right there. More moderate Muslims have not become radicalized; instead, radical Muslims have found they can no longer successfully attack the US at home and other powerful nations (we found the UK stopped an attempt just a few days ago), so they are going after nations with serious vulnerabilities to attack, such as Russia, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Spain, etc.

[Justice]

Terrorist cowards.

Truth is we're not entirely safe. A great example is a few days ago, someone on the FBI's terror watch list got on a plane in the U.S. and was halfway across the country until the FBI located their mistake and the plane made an emergency landing so the FBI could detain him. Another example is shipping containers in major U.S. ports - only 5% of containers are inspected, which means 95% of all containers aren't inspected. Those containers are the size of those you'll find on the back of an 18-wheeler ... that's more than enough to fit 2 or 3 nuclear warheads or enough chemical or biological agents to wipe out entire cities.

They still can successfully attack countries like the U.S. or U.K., but the probability of them getting through has been greatly reduced after 9/11. Still ... they really have nothing to gain from attacking countries that aren't really "important," per se, if you know what I mean. The majority of people in some of those countries don't agree with U.S. actions over the past few decades, as well.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[Karmashock]

1. Great Game in the Caspian Sea.

Among the theories about the administration's real reasons for bombing and occupying Afghanistan, the one with the most traction argues that Afghanistan provides the best real estate for an oil and natural gas pipeline. Believers say that fossil fuels in the Caspian Sea, once part of the Soviet empire, are now up for grabs in a fierce contest between Russia and the West. ...

2. The Afghanistan/Enron Connection.

Rumor has it that in the months before Enron's collapse, Bush, Cheney, and the much-gossiped-about "energy task force" convened daily, high-priority meetings to try and engineer a bailout for Bush's most generous campaign contributor. At the peak of the Enron scandal and in the aftermath of the attack on Afghanistan, a fascinating document surfaced in conspiracy circles that told of a bank-breaking Enron venture: ....

3. The Magic Passport Theory.

We can now add Mohamed Atta's reality-defying passport to the Arlen Specter Gallery of Improbable Projectiles. This incriminating item was thrown intact from a cataclysmic fireball and miraculously plucked from 1.6 million tons of debris in a matter of hours. The corporate media rarely mention the unlikelihood of this. Many in the alternative press, though, are unafraid to draw an obvious, albeit taboo, inference: that the Atta passport is planted evidence. According to Washington, DC, ....

4. Hijacker Oddities I.

Little-observed in the fine print of the FBI rap sheet on the September 11 hijackers was a clumsily phrased disclaimer admitting that the Bureau's document wasn't, ahem, necessarily a final draft (with note: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way").

Ringleader Mohamed Atta's identity was a slam-dunk, of course, owing to the propitious recovery of his passport. But bear in mind how quickly the FBI conjured its 19 Enemies of the State while you ponder the strange case of Waleed Al Shehri. In an article for the BBC, this Saudi Arabian national says that he turned up on the FBI list and feels that rumors of his death were greatly exaggerated. N...

5. Hijacker Oddities II.

Another theory about the hijackers' real identities takes as its departure an utterly bizarre and largely overlooked story on MSNBC.com, which says that some of the hijackers may have trained at U.S. Army bases. Yes, you read that right. Strange as it may seem, providing terrorists-slash-"freedom fighters" with lethal skills is a tradition in certain specialized arms of the American military and U.S. intelligence. The infamous School of the Americas, for example, helped to train the death squads that claimed so many innocent lives in Central America. Even so, the idea that the government might aid Osama's minions is completely beyond the pale, right? Perhaps. But remember the CIA and the military's record-breaking aid program to the Afghan Mujahedin movement, as outlined, for example, in John Cooley's Unholy Wars. Questions about hijacker links to U.S. intellig...

6. Insider Trades.

Remember right after the attacks when you couldn't watch TV for five minutes without hearing somebody say "put option"? The 9/11 insider stock trades got endless airplay on the major networks before Osama bin Laden became fixed in the popular imagination, whereupon the media bent themselves to the task of establishing his guilt. Still, even if Al Qaeda placed the 4,744 suspicious transactions, wouldn't the story still be useful, if only to further illuminate the terrorist net...

7. The New World Order Will Not Be Televised.

Assuming you haven't stopped reading yet -- either to start digging a bomb shelter in your backyard or to flip on FOX News for a much-needed dose of pro-war soma -- you have to be wondering how these flabbergasting stories escaped the notice of America's intrepid newshounds. Examine this question for even a minute and you will stumble onto a proven, card-carrying evil conspiracy: It's called the U.S. Congress, and conclusive evidence links them to a truly terrifying document known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

This legislation is relevant post-9/11 because it allowed the megamergers of media conglomerates to become ultra-monstermergers. As a result, today a handful of multinationals control most of what is said in the U.S. about military actions overseas and the reasons for them. At least one of these companies -- General Electric -- has fina...

8. Iran/Contra Redux.

Near the end of 2002, a surprisingly lethargic debate was underway in the U.S. concerning the "war on terror"'s erosion of Americans' civil liberties -- which many felt were already pretty meager anyhow, having been picked clean during two decades of the "war on drugs." The debate took a turn toward the paranormal when the corporate media briefly went agog over the Bush administration's citizen-stalking Information Awareness Office. By the time it got mentioned in the Washington Post, though, the IAO was old news to flying saucer buffs: Art Bell ri...

9. The Reichstag Fire and Operation Northwoods.

Now things get really weird. To those who scoff at the idea that the government could have had foreknowledge of or complicity in the September 11 attacks, conspiracy researchers respond that attacks have been faked or manufactured plenty of times before, usually to maneuver the public into supporting a war they would otherwise oppose. The Nazi party, for instance, most likely set fire to the Reichstag building in order to pin the crime on the communists and galvanize the people behind their police-state tactics. They also forged a fake battle to justify their invasion of Poland (2). Sure, you say, but the Nazis were like that. Unfortu...

10. Things to Come.

For many writers -- like www.rense.com's Diane Harvey -- the corruption of American empire is relevant, but only as a sidebar. The real problem stems from two incontrovertible facts: that reserves of oil and other non-renewable resources will someday run out, and that on its current course, the Earth is soon to become overloaded with people. If these twin problems go unaddressed, our species faces a gloo...