10
   

I hate conspiracy theories do you?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 04:29 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Everything else is the same. In the case of the Iran coup - if they had not admitted it/it had not been known, there could legitimately have been a conspiracy theory (would it then have been consigned to the scrap heap, just because it is a 'conspiracy theory'?).


This is hilarious. Do you really think that a democratically elected government can be overthrown, and replaced with a puppet monarch and no one is going to notice? Please . . .
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 04:33 pm
@Setanta,
Set, that sounds SO true now that I hear music.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 04:33 pm
@Setanta,
Set, that sounds SO true now that I hear music.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:02 pm
@Setanta,
I have to be honest that I am retarded about all these conspiracy theories! I have very little knowledge of history!

Is there any conspiracy theories that are true that the US or Europe engaged in or have we always been honest brokers?

If any of you know of any conspiracy theories that can be proven to be factual could you share a short list of them with me?

Thanks
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:21 pm
@reasoning logic,
Given the usage of conspiracy theory, of course i don't. Have European and North American nations engaged in conspiratorial actions? Of couse they have. Can it be kept secret for decades, for generations, for centuries? Please . . . conspiracies can only remain hidden if everyone concerned keeps their mouths shut all their lives and no records of any kind are kept. Governments are compulsive records keepers, and government emplyees rarely have any incentive to remain loyal to their masters for all their lives.

Criminal conspiracies involving very small numbers of people are the best prospects for successful conspiracies carried out in secrecy, and faithfully preserved from the light of day. They'll never be the subject of conspiracy theories, though, because you can't have a conspiracy theory without a clue. Conspiracy theories are, in essence, their own contradictions. If there were a successful conspiracy of silence, how would you know a conspiracy had been carried out? Conspiracy theories only arise because people are not satisfied with the explanation of known events, and begin to allege dark motives and clandestine operations. The proof's in the pudding, though. If they are simply relying on rhetoical questions and loaded questions, and present no evidence, their theories are worth exactly as much as you pay to hear them.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:34 pm
@Setanta,
Another thing about conspiracy theory is it lets people off the hook. If some all-powerful illuminati type organisation is ruling the world, what chance have presidents and prime ministers got of achieving anything? It excuses incompetence and negligence in our elected representatives.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:34 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This is hilarious. Do you really think that a democratically elected government can be overthrown, and replaced with a puppet monarch and no one is going to notice? Please . . .
Oh dear god, Setanta - who on earth suggested such? The purpose of this example isn't about one individual event, or it's flaws as relates to common knowledge (it's hard to hide americans in Iran). It's about where the line is between conspiracy and conspiracy theory - and how that should affect ones views of conspiracy theories. Every coup involves a conspiracy (hence the CIA Iran example), and the point being - the only difference between some conspiracies and some conspiracy theories, is secrecy. Do you think the CIA (or some other govt/intelligence agency, historical or otherwise) have never run a coup where they've not been caught?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:39 pm
@izzythepush,
A good point . . . and the most immediate appeal to the individual is that he or she need no longer suffer the frustration of not effectively dealing with their government and society . . . "What can i do, the Knights Templar are behind it all ? ! ? ! ?"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 05:41 pm
@vikorr,
Duh . . . if they'd not be caught, there'd be no conspiracy theory.

No, actually i don't belive that has ever happened. Central Intelligence has only been around for a little more than 60 years. The closest we come to this might be Gough Whitlam in Australia--and, of couse, if there were a successful conspiracy, i'd never know about that, would i? You're not thinking clearly here.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 06:11 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Duh . . . if they'd not be caught, there'd be no conspiracy theory.
Apart from yet again missing the point - this is one of the more thoughtless remarks you've made.

Do you think there is no conspiracy theory of the assassinations of 3 pakistani presidents (previously mentioned - being the only 3 anti-US presidents in a country that hates the US)?

Do you think no conspiracy theory exists over the assassination of Torrijos and Roldos, both only 2 months apart, and both through plane explosions - who at the time were the only two South American leaders with policies that were against US interests (in the case of Panama, nationalising Oil and the Panama Canal)

Below is in relation to Roldos.
Quote:
The available sources do not clarify the cause of the accident
nor do they mention any particular suspects in the case. However, as one of the attached sources reports, the plane crash led to "intense popular speculation," with some attributing its cause to the Peruvian government while others blamed the United States government (Hanratty 1990, 47). The crash that caused the death of Roldós apparently had similarities with the plane crash that killed Panamanian president Omar Torrijos less than three months later (Ibid.)
http://unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,QUERYRESPONSE,ECU,,3ae6ac0254,0.html

Coups run from other countries by the way, do not need to install a 'puppet' - just someone who is friendly that country.

The point I make (once you understand it) is quite easy to see, and you're quite intelligent - so it's interesting that you are behaving the way you are.

I say 'once you understand it' because many people have such prestructured responses to the words 'conspiracy theory' that it's not surprising anything involving that word is dismissed...when this is in fact illogical (everything should be based on it's merits, not it's label)
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:01 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Given the usage of conspiracy theory, of course i don't.


What is this usage of conspiracy theory that you are referring to that does not exist? I can only guess that you can not give an example of one because it does not exist?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:11 pm
@vikorr,
What is your view point on this conspiracy theory? watch 6.30!

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:28 pm
@reasoning logic,
Is it a theory that Bankers rule the world? Or that Bankers control the money markets? Or some other theory? Not being well read on the Great Depression, I wouldn't know much about it's historical accuracy. I'm don't really like the journo's style of reporting either.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:35 pm
@vikorr,
I'll go really slowly for you, as it apparently doesn't sink in. Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies which actually occurred, they are about conspiracies which someone alleged to have occurred. So, there actually was a conspiracy to take down the towers of the world trade center--and it was a conspiracy of Al Qaeda. Now, if you want to allege that the U. S. government were involved, then you've got a conspiracy theory.

If Central Intelligence conducted a successful coup about which you don't know, you can't very well have a conspiracy theory, now can youi?

Save your puerile insults about thoughtlessness until such time as you actually happen to have a genuine thought yourself.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:36 pm
@vikorr,
I am at a loss myself, I did find this interesting though!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:48 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Save your puerile insults about thoughtlessness until such time as you actually happen to have a genuine thought yourself.

How odd - the 'thoughtless' comment is in relation to your comment below...
Quote:
Duh . . . if they'd not be caught, there'd be no conspiracy theory.
...and I showed this to be plain wrong. Take it as in insult if you feel the need, but that you are wrong in this is plain fact.

Quote:
Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies which actually occurred, they are about conspiracies which someone alleged to have occurred.
Which again misses the point I have been making.

That said, the nature of your post does fit in perfectly with my last comment from my last post : many people have such prestructured responses to the words 'conspiracy theory' that it's not surprising anything involving that word is dismissed...when this is in fact illogical (everything should be based on it's merits, not it's label)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 07:53 pm
@vikorr,
You didn't show anything to be "plain wrong." I see you're a legend in your own mind. If an event is known to have occured, then one can theorize about a conspiracy. If no one knows that an event occured, they can hardly theorize about it. That is the evidence of your lack of thought.

You wrote:
Do you think the CIA (or some other govt/intelligence agency, historical or otherwise) have never run a coup where they've not been caught?


If they'd not be caught, if no one knew what had happended, there'd be no basis for a conspircy theory. However, if someone knows that something happened, and considered the circumstances to have been suspicious, then there's ground for a conspiracy theory. Have fun with that, Bubba.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:04 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If an event is known to have occured, then one can theorize about a conspiracy. If no one knows that an event occured, they can hardly theorize about it.
This would be Correct - and I have no issue with this ...
Quote:
You didn't show anything to be "plain wrong."

... but the first quote wasn't what you originally said, which was :
Quote:
Duh . . . if they'd not be caught, there'd be no conspiracy theory.
The difference between the first and third quotes is very obvious, and that you felt the need to add another qualifier (if no one knew what had happened) shows that you know the 3rd quote is actually wrong.

But let's say, that you want to stand by your actual original quote that I said was thoughtless (in this case the 3rd quote down). The colours have been used to identify exactly where you went wrong :

Quote:
The available sources do not clarify the cause of the accident
nor do they mention any particular suspects in the case. An event happened, and the perpertrators (if they exist) have not been caught.[/i] However, as one of the attached sources reports, the plane crash led to "intense popular speculation, with some attributing its cause to the Peruvian government while others blamed the United States government and there was a conspiracy theory (Hanratty 1990, 47). The crash that caused the death of Roldós apparently had similarities with the plane crash that killed Panamanian president Omar Torrijos less than three months later (Ibid.)

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:00 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

I am at a loss myself, I did find this interesting though!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


That's not a conspiracy theory that's information that's already out there. I have read it before. The extensive links with the Bushes and Bin Ladens is another scandal that just seems to wash over the Bushes. If a Democratic candidate had been involved in a fraction of the **** the Bushes had, he would have been vilified out of office. Look at the way Obama is vilified now just for being black.

The real scandal is how the power elites manipulate opinion to keep in power. That's something really happening, don't waste your time on theories, focus on the crap we all know about.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 04:12 am
@vikorr,
I'll go really slowly for you here, since it appears that you need that. Your examples are of events in which someone knows (or thinks they know) that Central Intelligence was involved. If no one knew that (or thought they knew that), there'd be no basis for a conspiracy theory. Your original statement posited a case in which no one knew that Central Intelligence was involved, but you try to pull a fast one and substitute an example in which it is known (or believed to be known) that Central Intelligence was involved. Don't tell me i'm thoughtless when you're trying to change the playing field in the middle of the discussion.
 

Related Topics

Rockhead's Music Thread - Discussion by Rockhead
What are you listening to right now? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
WA2K Radio is now on the air - Discussion by Letty
Just another music thread. - Discussion by msolga
Classical anyone? - Discussion by JPB
Ship Ahoy: The O'Jays - Discussion by edgarblythe
Evolutionary purpose of music. - Discussion by jackattack
An a2k experiment: What is our favorite song? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Has a Song Ever Made You Cry? - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 12:46:31