|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 23:05:10 GMT -5
Oh boy, I did it. Made a post that didn't fit the American-centric Presidential Election 2016 thread, opened the door for politics general instead.
Middle East is a mess, as always.
Let me break it down for you. It'll help me sort the thing out in my own head, too.
Turkey, a NATO nation, is set to invade Syria, has already started artillery campaigns against many in the first group I'll mention below, and plunge us into WW3 in accord with article 5 of NATO. That won't happen, though, since article 5 deals with defense and Turkey is the aggressor.
But, let's step back.
These are the sides (probably? All these names are getting me confused). Most members are escalating.
1. Russia + Iranian troops (Shi'ah) + Assad's Syrian Arab Army (Shi'ah), with Iraqi militia (Shi'ah. Kurdish? The Badr Brigade as an Iranian arm, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and the League of the Righteous, lots of people previously backed by the U.S. to fight ISIS) +(?) Kurdish YPG... VS 2. ISIS (Sunni, U.S.-Israel proxy army) + 3. CIA backed Free Syrian Army ('rebels,' mercenaries, Sunni), and now + Turkey (Sunni), AND + Arab League (Sunni Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, all mobilizing material and troops to support Turkey). Remember, Sunni (orthodox) dogma says that Shi'ah (schismatic) is apostasy and punishable by death. There's obvious theological background here, but there's obvious political motivation as well. Saudi military is a pushover, so is Turkey, they're gonna get absolutely rekt by the Russians, Hezbollah, Assad's forces, etc. They're going to want to try and pull NATO into this, which is hopefully unlikely.
Doo doo's probably gonna get real soon (14th-16th I predict). inb4 the false flags too It should be a convenient distraction from domestic issues and failed monetary policy anyway.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Feb 15, 2016 10:14:52 GMT -5
Sounds like a Maus fan
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 16:15:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Feb 17, 2016 16:58:40 GMT -5
Can you back that up with anything other than 1 email not even written by anyone in a governmental position?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 1:05:25 GMT -5
Donald Trump is a meanie.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 22, 2016 7:42:34 GMT -5
Honestly when Jeb was asking people to clap for him, it was over.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Feb 22, 2016 8:40:22 GMT -5
You spelled politics rong you dum dum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 0:39:04 GMT -5
I didn't drop out; I retooled like any responsible leader would. The American people and I will make you soil your pants, Mr Trump! ...Please crap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 23:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Feb 29, 2016 1:16:42 GMT -5
How do I know who filthy franku is?
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 11, 2016 13:32:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 22, 2016 9:43:30 GMT -5
Brussels was hit. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503928/Two-explosions-heard-Brussels-Airport.htmlnews.yahoo.com/whole-europe-hit-hollande-113424766.html;_ylt=AwrXgyJcN_FW7R8A0.zQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--Instantly the rhetoric that the god of the west, democracy, needs defending. This is a tragedy, but to say they hate us and kill us for our political system (though the west is more oligarchic that democratic or republic now, according to Harvard, PEW, Princeton, etc.) is, in my estimation, far from the truth. Also, Erdogan, Turkey's president, knew that Brussels was going to be... www.liveleak.com/view?i=b49_1458643580Bonus: vague prediction turns out right reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4awbxk/whats_happening_on_march_22/
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 22, 2016 12:42:35 GMT -5
Do you have any proof beyond whomever uploading it saying that is what he said and that is when he said it? Why wouldn't everyone be talking about it by now if it's true?
And that conspiracy post is sad. Now some idiot just had all his retarded beliefs validated. There's no saving him anymore.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 22, 2016 13:27:19 GMT -5
Well that's the thing. There are real conspiracies, but they're no where near as abundant as the typical conspiracy theorist claims.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 22, 2016 16:01:42 GMT -5
Do you have any proof beyond whomever uploading it saying that is what he said and that is when he said it? Why wouldn't everyone be talking about it by now if it's true? And that conspiracy post is sad. Now some idiot just had all his retarded beliefs validated. There's no saving him anymore. Nope. I just trusted the liveleak captions. :D Well, the premise is simple: "they control" the "mainstream media." at least, they influence it to an extent where minor stuff like this is passed over. And, it's not so hard to believe IMO. Notice his wording isn't "Brussels will be attacked" it's "why wouldn't Brussels and Europe be attacked?" Slight plausible deniability, and what about the rest of the speech? I dunno. I see US and Israeli interests overlapping with Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc., they're less likely to want media to want popular opinion to turn on the ally. you know the concept of claiming that a terrorist attack is a conspiracy by the elite (not saying it is) isnt even remotely unbelievable, EVEN attaching symbols to it isnt too crazy either since that can drive home the association that theyd be trying to get across. but these guys wonder why people think theyre crazy when they talk about messages being hidden in the simpsons or the matrix. I mean is the illuminati headed by the fu cking riddler or something? Its not like people take over the world just to jack off to chaos. Imagine how much more convincing these guys could be if they learned how to seperate meaningful connections from those which would serve no earthly purpose were they true. Best wishes to those hurt by the tragedy. Not much i can say that you probably havent heard elsewhere at this point. I fully agree on the symbolism stuff. IMO, the smartest thing any secret group could do, and did ( straight from the horse's mouth :D ), is to not give themselves a name. If there are secret societies, I think it'd be wise of them to add some misdirection and lay stuff like this around so that the people who aren't discerning enough (or those that go too deep down the rabbit hole, something like that) will look more like loonies. Well that's the thing. There are real conspiracies, but they're no where near as abundant as the typical conspiracy theorist claims. I'd like to stress this commonality. Everyone thinks there are conspiracies of some sort or another. But, IMO, the conflicts of interest feel too much for super grand conspiracies like Illuminati NWO stuff to actually work out. That, and the old "evil always turns in against evil" mantra. Still, I like to entertain this sort of stuff, it's always interesting to see patterns of evidence, even if they're fake patterns or coincidences. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. And, connecting this point with the one I made in response to Mousey's, it'd be wise to try and misdirect people to grander conspiracies in scale so they don't look as closely at the smaller, actual conspiracies. Edit: some more realpolitiks: www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixonOI ABC reported the Erdogan's speech, check it Apho :D abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/kurdish-militants-hit-europe-turkeys-erdogan-37743106Edit 2: some examples of admitted conspiracies: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/58-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 22, 2016 17:42:49 GMT -5
Well that's the thing. There are real conspiracies, but they're no where near as abundant as the typical conspiracy theorist claims. I'd like to stress this commonality. Everyone thinks there are conspiracies of some sort or another. But, IMO, the conflicts of interest feel too much for super grand conspiracies like Illuminati NWO stuff to actually work out. That, and the old "evil always turns in against evil" mantra. Still, I like to entertain this sort of stuff, it's always interesting to see patterns of evidence, even if they're fake patterns or coincidences. I never said Illuminati type conspiracies. I think that kind of stuff is bubpkis, but real conspiracies such as the one that lead to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the attempts to assassinate Castro, MK Ultra, Tuskegee experiments etc... There absolutely are real conspiracies such as those.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Mar 22, 2016 20:01:10 GMT -5
I believe that Trump is deliberately placed as a Trojan Horse for the Clinton campaign. I think it's a very creative method to get the people to accept, and perhaps even celebrate, Hillary winning the presidency. Without someone as "crazy" as him on the other side, I don't think the people would buy her as president. I think that both of the parties are run by the same people, and they decided many years ago that this time would be Hillary's turn.
Am I a crazy conspiracy theorist?
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 22, 2016 20:07:42 GMT -5
I believe that Trump is deliberately placed as a Trojan Horse for the Clinton campaign. I think it's a very creative method to get the people to accept, and perhaps even celebrate, Hillary winning the presidency. Without someone as "crazy" as him on the other side, I don't think the people would buy her as president. I think that both of the parties are run by the same people, and they decided many years ago that this time would be Hillary's turn. Am I a crazy conspiracy theorist? Yes
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 15:44:32 GMT -5
If there's no discernible motivation for a possible action besides misdirection or a conceited sense of puzzle-making... Another possibility: mutual dirt. Get oneself involved in high realpolitik, there's tons of opportunity for blackmail. Someone suggests getting together to perform satanic rituals and fake child sacrifices so, again, they have dirt on eachother. You reveal one of my secrets? I can take you down with me. It's tradition. Anyways. The Panama Papers: A Panama law firm ( Mossack Fonseca ) specializing in offshore accounts and shell firms was hacked. The hacker leaked stuff to a German newspaper a year ago. However, there's signs of manipulation. The group that's managing the leak's publication is www.icij.org/index.htmlWho is funded by www.publicintegrity.org/about/our-work/supportersNow, among that number are many western 'elites,' like Soros, Rockefellers, Kellogg. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish, but we'll see who gets their buns fried for this. I've also heard that Wikileaks had to leak the leak, and that the actual leak has a lot more on everyone? The icij run publication is slowly revealing, on the other hand. I've also heard that it's ousted some Brit politicians, and this is why I think it fits well with the realpolitik: those small fish. No surprise if the big 'uns who're running the publication, as described, are willing to sacrifice a few of their minor allies in order to give it a sense of plausible deniability. Edit, some more buns frying: Putin? Assad? I haven't seen the docs myself, obv. Iceland's PM, some minor Israeli: attorney Dov Weisglass, former bureau chief of the late prime minister Ariel Sharon; and Israeli businessman Idan Offer. Edit 2: Tons breaking. What I suspect is that... a lot more will be implicated in time. We'll see who's focused on and who's ignored. And, I can't find the actual raw documents anywhere? :[
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Apr 4, 2016 16:52:56 GMT -5
If there's no discernible motivation for a possible action besides misdirection or a conceited sense of puzzle-making... Another possibility: mutual dirt. Get oneself involved in high realpolitik, there's tons of opportunity for blackmail. Someone suggests getting together to perform satanic rituals and fake child sacrifices so, again, they have dirt on eachother. You reveal one of my secrets? I can take you down with me. It's tradition. Anyone willing to take part in something that would compromise their integrity (like ritualistic sacrifice) already has real dirt on them if people bother to look. Likewise there doesn't exist a good reason for me to compromise myself just to get dirt on you. These are mob tactics that usually only work because there's a gun behind them and there's no option to say no. Mutual incrimination is not something most people want to take part in, especially not in the age of internet and cell phone cameras.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Apr 4, 2016 18:34:57 GMT -5
There is a conspiracy surrounding Brussels and other terrorist attacks. It is an insidious, evil conspiracy set in motion by malicious puppet masters whose public statements are mostly lies designed to hide their true motivations.
And I know who the conspirators are behind the Brussels attacks. Are you ready? I am going to tell you:
ISIS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2016 18:39:28 GMT -5
If there's no discernible motivation for a possible action besides misdirection or a conceited sense of puzzle-making... Another possibility: mutual dirt. Get oneself involved in high realpolitik, there's tons of opportunity for blackmail. Someone suggests getting together to perform satanic rituals and fake child sacrifices so, again, they have dirt on eachother. You reveal one of my secrets? I can take you down with me. It's tradition. Anyways. The Panama Papers:
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 20:35:07 GMT -5
There is a conspiracy surrounding Brussels and other terrorist attacks. It is an insidious, evil conspiracy set in motion by malicious puppet masters whose public statements are mostly lies designed to hide their true motivations. And I know who the conspirators are behind the Brussels attacks. Are you ready? I am going to tell you: ISIS. Again: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/58-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html#more-52306https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4bn4op/here_is_what_actual_analysis_of_brussels_bombing/ And, well, you might not be wrong. ISIS is a US-backed proxy army, after all. Realpolitik at its finest. Thanks, Erdogan. Edit: in other news, I'm turning Russian: Edit 2: Financial collapse soon. 8^] Edit 3: just so you know I'm going full loonie 8^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/8-reasons-911-not-inside-job.html
|
|
|
Post by illram on Apr 4, 2016 20:59:15 GMT -5
Why not consider the much more plausible idea that terrorists benefit from performing more terrorist attacks. Does the West really need another terrorist attack right now for the nefarious Illuminati social control agenda? We just had Paris, we're all pretty terrorized right now as it is. Don't you think a slow drip might work for the Free Masons? Seems a little greedy to go and commit another false flag so soon!
The real conspiracy is, of course, originating with the terrorists. ISIS (and others before then, such as Osama Bin Laden, KSM, all the rest) know terrorist attacks will foment continued anti-muslim sentiment in the West, which in turn feeds ISIS's recruitment propaganda that the evil Imperialist West is out to destroy Islam. So they continue their campaign of civilian terrorist attacks in a planned effort to create the religious narrative they need to keep young Arab men flocking to their political cause on the false premise of some upstanding, Godly war to defend Islam. When really all most of these higher-up jerks (i.e. the ones not putting on the suicide vests, but telling others to do so) want is money, power, and the rest of the things megalomaniacs usually want. (Although I am sure there are a few dyed in the wool true believers.)
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Apr 4, 2016 23:57:44 GMT -5
just so you know I'm going full loonie 8^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] At least you admit it. Look up what Occam's razor is. It points out the biggest flaw with conspiracies. Did you even bother to look into the sources on that 9/11 article? Every link leads back to the same site or some 9/11 truthing site. Seriously though, Occam's razor destroys the 9/11 conspiracy. What happened on 9/11? Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack, or some religious extremists decided to attack the country they see as degrading the world's morality.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 10:17:16 GMT -5
Why not consider the much more plausible idea that terrorists benefit from performing more terrorist attacks. Or, the equally plausible idea that terrorists have cooperated with western intelligence agencies and operations because, while their goals may not align, they both see the same methods as conducive to achieving their own? just so you know I'm going full loonie 8^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] At least you admit it. Look up what Occam's razor is. It points out the biggest flaw with conspiracies. Did you even bother to look into the sources on that 9/11 article? Every link leads back to the same site or some 9/11 truthing site. Seriously though, Occam's razor destroys the 9/11 conspiracy. What happened on 9/11? Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack, or some religious extremists decided to attack the country they see as degrading the world's morality. Oh, please, don't patronize me with Occam's razor. And certainly don't use it to broadly brand all conspiracies as loonie. We've admitted before that thousands of people have worked on things like the Manhattan Project, or MKULTRA, or numerous false flags. There are numerous admitted conspiracies. No, I dare say the argument that 9/11 was not an inside job has FAR more assumptions, as the sarcasm in the article points out, than the idea that it was an inside job. You didn't put any effort in, did you? Yes, I did look at the sources. Literally click the first link. Hey, guess what the second link on the previous page was? The first link on that page. "9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue." Ok, where does Radio Canada get its information? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Solomon interviewing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_H._Hamilton about his book, Without Precedent. Ha ha, Do you have any good reason to doubt its authenticity? Is CBC some "9/11 truthing site"? Check the next link: historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972Okay, um... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_News_NetworkGee, who would've thought that George Mason University was full conspiritard? Haha, I kid, let's look at the particular people involved: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Maier ok hmm, a little fishy. I mean, how could someone who "achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles" be a reliable source? Next one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Troy Oh boy, no better. A Harvard historian. How about we just look up the guy who wrote the article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_May_(historian) Oh no! Another Harvard historian! Your branding is looking pretty silly right about now. Next link: www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion "The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”" Next: Oh, sorry, this one is 404'd. I'll get an archive page: web.archive.org/web/20120621201359/http://www.salon.com/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”" Well, isn't that nice? I hate salon as much as any good libertarian should, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss all of their articles on the basis that, haha, they're a "truther site," whatever that's supposed to mean. Let's jump back for a second. You said "Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack..." Well, maybe if you actually Foxtroting read the article, you'd see that, in fact, many government officials have not kept quiet: "IV. No One Could Keep Such a Big Conspiracy Secret … Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans" Now, I don't feel like going through all the links, so why don't you cherry pick a few for me? Or how about you go and click through the links with a bit more honesty and rigor, k? ;]
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Apr 5, 2016 10:21:39 GMT -5
So you're legitimately saying 9/11 was an inside job? K
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 11:12:16 GMT -5
So you're legitimately saying 9/11 was an inside job? K Legit as heck, because the arguments are s o l i d as heck. Occam's razor is on "my side." Step to me. And, I have to apologize for my rhetoric. I'm not sure how I feel, but I think it's something like frustration. I should've taken longer to compose the message to Apho and toned it down.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Apr 5, 2016 11:36:05 GMT -5
Why not consider the much more plausible idea that terrorists benefit from performing more terrorist attacks. Or, the equally plausible idea that terrorists have cooperated with western intelligence agencies and operations because, while their goals may not align, they both see the same methods as conducive to achieving their own? At least you admit it. Look up what Occam's razor is. It points out the biggest flaw with conspiracies. Did you even bother to look into the sources on that 9/11 article? Every link leads back to the same site or some 9/11 truthing site. Seriously though, Occam's razor destroys the 9/11 conspiracy. What happened on 9/11? Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack, or some religious extremists decided to attack the country they see as degrading the world's morality. Oh, please, don't patronize me with Occam's razor. And certainly don't use it to broadly brand all conspiracies as loonie. We've admitted before that thousands of people have worked on things like the Manhattan Project, or MKULTRA, or numerous false flags. There are numerous admitted conspiracies. No, I dare say the argument that 9/11 was not an inside job has FAR more assumptions, as the sarcasm in the article points out, than the idea that it was an inside job. You didn't put any effort in, did you? Yes, I did look at the sources. Literally click the first link. Hey, guess what the second link on the previous page was? The first link on that page. "9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue." Ok, where does Radio Canada get its information? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Solomon interviewing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_H._Hamilton about his book, Without Precedent. Ha ha, Do you have any good reason to doubt its authenticity? Is CBC some "9/11 truthing site"? Check the next link: historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972Okay, um... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_News_NetworkGee, who would've thought that George Mason University was full conspiritard? Haha, I kid, let's look at the particular people involved: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Maier ok hmm, a little fishy. I mean, how could someone who "achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles" be a reliable source? Next one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Troy Oh boy, no better. A Harvard historian. How about we just look up the guy who wrote the article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_May_(historian) Oh no! Another Harvard historian! Your branding is looking pretty silly right about now. Next link: www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion "The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”" Next: Oh, sorry, this one is 404'd. I'll get an archive page: web.archive.org/web/20120621201359/http://www.salon.com/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”" Well, isn't that nice? I hate salon as much as any good libertarian should, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss all of their articles on the basis that, haha, they're a "truther site," whatever that's supposed to mean. Let's jump back for a second. You said "Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack..." Well, maybe if you actually Foxtroting read the article, you'd see that, in fact, many government officials have not kept quiet: "IV. No One Could Keep Such a Big Conspiracy Secret … Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans" Now, I don't feel like going through all the links, so why don't you cherry pick a few for me? Or how about you go and click through the links with a bit more honesty and rigor, k? ;] You're not really proving yourself right here, you're just proving Aphoristic wrong. Something that really isn't that hard to do because... So you're legitimately saying 9/11 was an inside job? K Legit as heck, because the arguments are s o l i d as heck. Occam's razor is on "my side." Step to me. And, I have to apologize for my rhetoric. I'm not sure how I feel, but I think it's something like frustration. I should've taken longer to compose the message to Apho and toned it down. Occam'r razor is, at most, a suggestion and not a hard rule.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Apr 5, 2016 11:52:59 GMT -5
Literally click the first link. Hey, guess what the second link on the previous page was? The first link on that page. "9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue." Did you read the f ucking interview? No, of course you are just going with that cherry picked line. The interview was about Lee Hamilton's book on the 9/11 Commission. Question 1: Why'd he write it? Because he wanted to tell the story of what it was like inside the commission. Question 2: Was the commission a success? He explains there were 2 goals for the commission. 1. Explain the events of 9/11 (yes this was a success), and 2. Make recommendations for the future (half of the recommendations were enacted into law, so partial success there). Question 3: What do you say to the high number of people who don't believe the report? "Well, it’s dispiriting, it’s an unusually high number, but if you look at polls judging government reports in the past - the Warren Commission, the reports on Kennedy assassination, even the reports on Abraham Lincoln’s assassination - you find a very high level of people who are skeptical. And you have that in this case.
When you conduct a major investigation, you cannot possibly answer every question, you just do the best you can. But for every question you leave unanswered, you create an opening to a conspiracy theory, and a good many of them have popped up here.
The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard. That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make. On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence.
But conspirators are always going to exist in this country. Tom Kean and I got a flavour of this everytime we'd walk through an audience - they would hand us notes, hand us papers, hand us books, hand us tapes, telling us to investigate this, that or the other. You cannot possibly answer all these questions, you just do the best you can."Let's skip ahead, so where does the "set up to fail" come from? He used it as the title of a chapter in his book. "Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake. The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.
So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed."He's not saying anything unusual. The bold line right there explains the rest of your post. I'll go further and say that nobody likes people looking deeper to see if they screwed something up. Why? Because they probably did mess up something minor. That's not abnormal. So of course they are going to be less than helpful in the investigation. Honestly, you're trying to twist the words of a guy who in the first couple questions explains that he believes the report is a success at explaining the events of 9/11. Also, Foxtroting scroll down. There are sources such as "911truth.org" "ae911truth.org" "patriotsquestion911.com" "911research.wtc7.net" and you're telling me these are good sources for information? They're conspiracy sites. They lack any real credibility. Edit: And yeah, Occam's razor isn't anything more than a suggestion, but jaedrik is actually trying to say it's on his side here. No, it isn't. It's never on the side of the conspiracies.
|
|