Israel and its history of false flag attacks

Started by zarus tathra, September 10, 2013, 09:57:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LikelyToBreak

Hydra009 wrote in part:
QuoteThe standard modus operandi is to point to known false flags and known secretive wrongdoing to float whatever conspiracy theory they wish to advance that day, hoping that public distrust alone will be convincing.
That sounds about right.  There are plenty of conspiracy theorist who do the equivalent thing of quote mining.  But, many of us have seen the blatant lies, aka: false flags, and then wonder if the latest crisis is just another false flag.  Especially when elements of the government seem to make clearing out rubble more important then finding evidence of possible criminal conduct.  When most favored corporations get no-bid contracts and new federal agencies are formed and the government has severely limited independent investigations, we tend to think the fix is in.

Just to be clear, some of the members of the 9/11 Commission also have unanswered questions about their report.
//http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
But, the American public is supposed to stand down, because it bothers some people's feelings.  :cry:

MmmAtlas

Well in defense, arabs have a history of invading countries too.
Hopefully peace will be restored in the future. But only if the development goes well within society :D

Cocoa Beware

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I found a quote from Scott Huber, it reads, "I think there is one basic reason people choose to trust the government, especially the federal government: they no longer trust a sovereign God to look out for them."  This would explain why so many atheists are ardent supporters of government officials.  At least the Democrat part of it.  Being skeptical shouldn't stop at just the creationists' claims.  It needs to be applied to the government and the press as well.

Scott Huber has his head up his arse.

Have you ever met someone who trusts their Government? Or someone who thinks they are honest?

LikelyToBreak

drunkenshoe, I'm afraid you lost me.  For instance your first question, "You know what is so simple about understanding if something is just a conspiracy theory or not?"  Then you reference a know conspiracy theorist, "Read from Chomsky."  

Try to look at it another way.  On 9/11, the government put forward a conspiracy theory about how 19 people conspired to make it happen.  Then the government covered its' ass and only recognized evidence which supported their theory, and discarded any evidence which didn't support their allegations.  While I realize that not every question can be answered, I do expect more than, "Our top secret pictures and other top secret information, completely prove our theory correct.  Further more, no one can be blamed for negligence because we didn't have the Patriot Act at the time."

I don't think the government used star wars technology to knock down the buildings.  I do question why the only documents which would show where the military spent trillions of dollars, just happened to be exactly where the Pentagon was hit and in WTC 7.  Does seem more likely that the terrorists just selected the right targets and hit them, or that the military just said the documents were there, to prevent embarrassment and possible prosecution?  

I think Chomsky and Nader come closer to the conspiracy that I believe in than Alex Jones.  But, if I bring up questions to "official" reports, I am immediately put in the same category as those who believe in lizard people from outer space.  So, what I see as reasonable questions don't have to be answered, because I am tin foil hat wearing, lizard people believing, nut case.  Makes it easy to discredit all of my questions that way.

LikelyToBreak

drunkenshoe asked in part:
QuoteWho defined Chomsky is a known 'conspiracy theorist'? American politics and politicians?
Yep.  Pretty much.  During the Vietnam war Chomsky alleged things about it which the right wing labeled as "crazy."  Later the Pentagon Papers and enough returning vets collaborated much of what he had alleged.  Even today, his detractors paint him as a nut for saying the corporations have too much power over the media.  The same with Nader.  When he advocates government watch dog groups, he is just going too far.  The government doesn't need watch dog groups because they watch themselves.  Therefore Nader is just being a paranoid conspiracy theorist.  Who happens to be friends with Alex Jones, by the way.

drunkenshoe wrote in part:
QuoteTell me when you are close to the main gate. The current room you are in that 'we could track how 9/11 was planned and succeeded' is a great cloud sign to me that we are not in the same book, let alone similar pages.
I don't remember writing that and the search I did only came up with drunkenshoe's post.  Somebody else may have written it, I don't recall.

drunkenshoe wrote in part:
QuoteIf you are going to question something, I recommend to start with historical perspective. None of the events are cut from each other. Knowing this and seeing this are two different things. They do not need some forced logic to connect them either. A notion that starts with 'everything was fine till insert a president name or event' will not get you anywhere. It's a curriculum. Skip school one day.
When posting it is impossible to explain all of the history of one given topic.  It usually takes books to do that.  On a forum, we are pretty much stuck with "bumper sticker" political statements.  

History is full of proven and unproven conspiracy theories.  To us conspiracy theory nutcases, we don't understand why the government isn't questioned more on its' actions.  The press are supposed to be the fourth estate which keeps the government inline.  But, now that most of the press is controlled by the corporations, who control the government through lobbying, there is a lack of checks and balances in the American system.  And anybody who tries to fill in for the absent mainstream press is considered a nut case conspiracy theorist.  Yet, can you deny that corporations make up the largest parts of advertising dollars for the mainstream press?  Take a look at how many subsidiaries a major corporation owns.  Think of how if a newspaper pisses off say Phillip-Morris, how they will loose not only cigarette advertising, but Oscar-Meyer, Louis-Rich, Post, Maxwell House, etc.  They are not exceptional in this regard.  Most major corporations have diversified into other industries from what they are best known as.

Speaking of historical conspiracies, one of the best which most have not heard of, was the conspiracy to overthrow the government during the Franklin Roosevelt administration.  General Smedley Butler exposed it, but no one was prosecuted for it.  They wanted to set-up a fascist government with Butler leading it, but taking orders from some of the prominent businessmen of the day.  In other words from the owners of the biggest corporations at the time.  It is thought that FDR used the incident to solidify his own political standing by holding charges of treason over the heads of the conspirators.  The only proof of that, is that he was the first and only President to run for a third and fourth term.  

So, is it so far fetched to think the corporations have just found new ways of taking over power in the US?

zarus tathra

Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Cocoa Beware

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

The same Wikipedia where anyone can log on and fabricate whatever they want?

Plu

Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.

The same Wikipedia where anyone can log on and fabricate whatever they want?

The same Wikipedia that is proven to be at least as accurate as an encyclopedia if you take more than 3 seconds to check it's edit history and sources.

"But anyone can edit" is the argument made by people who haven't the foggiest idea how wikipedia actually works.

zarus tathra

?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Okay, so how about Israel's top newspaper?

Sounds like it was a first class operation:

QuoteHowever, the agents were caught. One committed suicide in prison, two were hanged and four got long prison terms.

Oh wait...  #-o

Franklin

Quote from: "zarus tathra"Here's a question: how many of the doubters have actually READ any of my links in the OP? The one for the Lavon Affair isn't even a "conspiracy site." It's Wikipedia, and it's incredibly damning.
I don't want to argue for or against Israel, but I think we can agree that the Israeli government isn't stupid.  I know about the Lavon Affair which was certainly nasty, but there is some logic to it.  The downside risk was limited because no Americans were killed.  Even when it was botched and revealed, it didn't destroy Israeli relations with America.  I haven't heard of the USS Liberty incident, but it simply sounds like an accident.  As for the WTC, the downside risk of being caught is so big that Israel would have had to be incredibly stupid to try it, and they aren't that stupid.  That is reason enough to eliminate this possibility.  In any case, the standard explanation that Al Queda did it makes sense and holds up to scrutiny.

Thumpalumpacus

That's some shitty logic, OP.  Think more and post less.
<insert witty aphorism here>

zarus tathra

They were trying to bomb US owned properties. That would have resulted in US deaths. The only reason they came out of it alive is because they were too stupid to succeed.

And honestly, hitting one of our buildings is only maybe 2-3 times as bad as the USS liberty. If they could pull off the Liberty, why not the WTC?
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "zarus tathra"[...] why not the WTC?

Evidence please.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Insult to Rocks

Look, having heard a million theories like this, I can only say one thing at this point: so what? If your crazy conspiracy is true, so goddam what?! 9/11 was a terrible event, yes, and it was a political catalyst, yes, but it happened 12 years ago now! Move on! There are far more important things to be doing than overanalyzing every little thing that happened that day! Damn! :evil:
"We must respect the other fellow\'s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken