Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Sunday, August 27, 2006

conspiracy theories...

Commenting on the previous post, Kurt said "...one needs to be careful about carrying this into the conspiracy theory territory regarding political motives."

Political motives and conspiracies...

American (and other) govenments have never manipulated the public perception of events to further their political agenda?

They have never stage-managed events to create pretexts for military interventions or wars?

They have never misrepresented events to the public in order to get public approval for military interventions or wars?

Things like this never happened?

These things were not conspiracies?

To suspect a conspiracy is to be automatically deemed "loony"?

Is there any conspiracy surrounding the events of 9/11? If there is, then I think it would be something along the lines of some deliberate intelligence "blindness" to signs and warnings that al Qaeda was planning a massive terrorist attack involving the multiple hijacking of airliners and flying them into iconic buildings.

How one would prove/disprove such a theory is another matter altogether.

Could the US military leadership be brutal enough to countenance such deliberate "blindness" in order to further their agenda? I would say "yes".

There is now quite a bit of debate that Pearl Harbour was just such an event.

And then there was Operation Northwoods. Kennedy killed the plan, but woud someone like George W. Bush have killed it?

12 Comments:

Blogger Davo said...

I was going to write a much longer "comment" but have a tendency trip over the keys in the keyboard, so will have to take the time to write it up as a post.

What puzzles me at the moment is that it would be so easy to squash most of the "conspiracy" theorists if there was some more credible evidence supporting the "official"claims. It may be just me, but I have yet to see a photo of the Shanksville crash site that looks like a "real"aircraft ended up in, or even near, the hole. Similarly, the FBI were very quick to confiscate all of the surveillance images at the Pentagon. It would only take one, just one frame of an image that showed the intact aircraft immediately prior to impact. And yes, the surveillance cameras were not "video"cameras and the frame rate is quite slow. IF there was a frame showing the aircraft "outside" of the wall of the Pentagon, where is it?

August 27, 2006 2:10 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

or rather, where WAS it. It's too easy to"manufacture" images, or sound tracks, for that matter - for "release" several years after the event.

August 27, 2006 2:18 PM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

I read the links on the last post and they cleared up a lot. I taped the report on why the towers came down and will have another look at that.

I watched the planes go in and even in this age of computer generated images, that was real.

The Bush Administration has shown itself to lie so easily that people are willing to believe they could manipulate a conspiracy like this.

I have read, but don't quote me on this, that it was Churchill that knew about Pearl Harbour but didn't tell Roosevelt.

August 27, 2006 4:27 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

Have read somewhere (but don't quote me on this) Roosevelt knew. (Roosevelt ? sheesh, that's going back a bit. Was Roosevelt really a President? heh heh)

August 27, 2006 6:14 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

Jahteh, just to clarify a point .. YOU DID NOT WATCH THE AiRCRAFT.

Many people saw images of the event.

August 27, 2006 6:20 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

My grandfather was a very senior RAAF officer stationed in Darwin during WWII and was a radio communications specialist.

I remember him telling me many, many times during discussions on things WWII, that the Americans well and truly knew what was going to happen at Pearl Harbour. The US had broken the Japanese codes months before and had intercepted radio traffic from the PH attack fleet.

August 28, 2006 7:43 AM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

Brain's on a go slow but I get the point finally, Davo. You're right I wasn't in NY, I was watching the TV.

August 28, 2006 6:35 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Davo gets the Pedant Of The Week Award, JahTeh. If he knocks that award back, I'll give him Conspiracy Theorist Of The Week Award. ;-)

Davo, relax. It really is OK to say we saw the planes go into the towers. There were heaps of eye witnesses on the ground. It really did happen, Davo. It was not Capricorn One. It really did happen.

I believe I was meant to see it live. At that time, I would usually be in bed by about 11pm. But on that day, my partner was in Germany on a business trip, I was alone at home and during the day symptoms which I thought were a hernia, got increasingly worse until, at about 10.30pm, they were so bad I decided to drive myself to Katoomba Hospital. When I got there, whilst waiting for a doctor to see me, the nurse drew my attention to the TV in the waiting room, saying something like "Shit! Look what's happening in New York!!!!!" Well, I got to see it live for the next two hours. Plane after plane after plane. The commentary was off the Richter Scale. America was under attack.

August 28, 2006 7:05 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Ron, thanks for sharing that anecdote about your grandfather. Interesting indeed.

August 28, 2006 7:35 PM  
Blogger DS said...

Remember what Churchill said in 1943: "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

August 29, 2006 3:08 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Hi, DS, good to see you back here. I think Churchill was talking about protecting secrets with lies for the purpose of deceiving an enemy. These are different lies, I think.

Lies designed to deceive one's own people. Lies which seek to hide the truth from one's own people in order to shape opinion in a direction (towards a war) it would not have gone if the truth were known. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

August 29, 2006 10:39 AM  
Blogger Davo said...

"Pedant of the Week" Award accepted .. will try for more obfuscation next week ;).

August 30, 2006 9:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

==========
<<<<< Home
==========