Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

conspiraloons

Status
Not open for further replies.
DoUsAFavour said:
I think you will find there is very good evidence (which, is not a matter of debate for this thread) that points the finger firmly at a small group of neocons. To the point of a having a signed document by these men stating their need for large attack on home soil.
You'll have to draw my attention to this evidence. I rather think it may consist of people drawing very large conclusions from very little material.

I also wonder whether it may not pass the test contained herein.

In the meantime, I suppose I should observe that despite claiming that he would do otherwise, Azrael has still not responded to the specific questions I raised above.
 
bluestreak said:
no but bob fisk isn't saying anything that most people on here would describe as conspiracy theory. that's just the politics of imperialism, power and greed. it's not a conspiracy if it's obvious who is doing something and why, no matter how many lies they tell to back it up.

conspiracy or conspiracy theory?

there is a difference.


bluestreak said:
you seem to miss the point... just because the government lies about some things, it doesn't mean they lie about everything. or, to put it another way, just because they use 9/11 to their advantage and tell lies about it to gain sympathy and support does not automatically mean that they were directly responsible.

whooo hoooo you mentioned 9/11. You are obviouslly taking Chomskys and Moores view that the US used it to their advantage only and had no direct influence on it.
NORAD -- there is no question that the US government allowed those hijacked planes free flight around US aiirspace. That is called complicity and 'aiding and abeting"
NORAD is a key issue

Bob Fisk is saying there is a conspiracy going on in Iraq. People are secretly funding and encouraging death squads in Iraq. There is no openess, well unless you read up on the P2OG program "Pro-active Pre-emptive Operations Group" john pilger writes

Now to make clear;
people who indicate these things going on are called 'conspiraloons'. We do not scream "this is a conspiracy, everything is a conspiracy", it is a definition slapped on us by 'shills' and people who latch onto dis-information posters thinking it is funny
 
zArk said:
NORAD -- there is no question that the US government allowed those hijacked planes free flight around US aiirspace. That is called complicity and 'aiding and abeting"
It's all a bit pointless with you, isn't it?
 
DoUsAFavour said:
WOW!

Easy tiger!!

:eek: :D

:oops: :oops:

Ahem ...

I think that you know though, that last nights rant from me wasn't aimed personally at you though ... just touched a VERY raw nerve following developments of the past few months and weeks ... :mad:
 
zArk said:
Now to make clear;
people who indicate these things going on are called 'conspiraloons'. We do not scream "this is a conspiracy, everything is a conspiracy", it is a definition slapped on us by 'shills' and people who latch onto dis-information posters thinking it is funny

Yes you have made it VERY claear -- that is, your utter inability to distinguish sceptics about conspiracy theories from 'shills' (whatever the fuck they are??) or from gullible dupes of government propoganda.

Is it any wonder that independent-minded, non establishment minded, sceptics about conspiracy theories have so little patience with people like you, who seem to assume any challenge to your mindset is instigated by government sponsored misinformation?

That kind of insulting arrogance will win you few friends.
 
lookitup.jpeg
 
here is a classic example of a CONSPIRACY, no question no doubt

UN Sexually Exploiting Women and Children -fact

but where are the front page reports?
where are the nightly news reports?

Gary Glitter is slapped all over the newspapers and tv news.
Michael Jackson is given full coverage

Where are the reports about the UN???????

there is a conspiracy of silence

here is another Conspiracy of Silence

“Conspiracy of Silence”, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3, 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired
 
bluestreak said:
bob fisk isn't saying anything that most people on here would describe as conspiracy theory. that's just the politics of imperialism, power and greed. it's not a conspiracy if it's obvious who is doing something and why, no matter how many lies they tell to back it up. you seem to miss the point... just because the government lies about some things, it doesn't mean they lie about everything. or, to put it another way, just because they use 9/11 to their advantage and tell lies about it to gain sympathy and support does not automatically mean that they were directly responsible.

Spot on, CTers are VERY fond of selectively picking up on reputable reseach and on investigative journalism occasionally, when it suits them, even though said research will usually have nothing in reality to say at all in direct support of their pet theories, but is just challenging the government versions of events in a completely different way ...

I speculate that people like Robert Fisk find full on conspiracy theorists a pain in the arse and a hindrance to gaining credibility for their OWN research and findings ...
 
Donna Ferentes said:


Done it


'Shills' as defined by Wikipedia

I suspect the term is hardly known at all in the UK, but nonetheless it's another example of conspiracy theorists needing better PR managers ... write off your opponents as 'shills' (or similar) zArk, and you're winning no friends at all! :rolleyes:

Oh well, hope you retain your share of the ultra specialist niche market that you seem content to remain in. In the world of reality that type of insulting arrogance just pisses people off ...
 
pembrokestephen said:
I think that the difference between Bob Fisk and a conspiraloon is that Fisk has a notion of journalistic integrity: when he makes a claim, he can tell you why he's making the claim, what it's based on, and cite credible sources to support his views. A typical conspiraloon response would be "go to <insert name of frothing website here>, read for yourself. It's all there. Buy the DVD off eBay, do some work for yourself to prove my ludicrous rantings".

It isn't hard to see why one gets believed, and the other ridiculed.

You know the full score I think ...
 
Donna Ferentes said:
You'll have to draw my attention to this evidence. I rather think it may consist of people drawing very large conclusions from very little material.

So you don't find it ever so slightly dodgy that, among others, 'Dick' Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield signed a document presented to GWB expressing the need for a 9/11 esq attack on home soil?

How queer. :)

I find it hard to believe, and I'm guessing many others do as well, that any real socialist would not doubt that the US admin are more than capable of killing thousands of their own citizens, and millions of Johnny Foreigners for a few quid.
 
DoUsAFavour said:
I find it hard to believe, and I'm guessing many others do as well, that any real socialist would not doubt that the US admin are more than capable of killing thousands of their own citizens, and millions of Johnny Foreigners for a few quid.
I'm having trouble believing that the globe's sole superpower would set about the highly perilous political path of mass murdering their own citizens and blowing up a large chunk of their greatest city supposedly to provide a pretext to invade a weaker country - especially when their CV is already packed with examples of invasions/bombings elsewhere.
 
Dilzybhoy said:
I've noticed another new trend in conspiraloonary...

RE the <deleted> are all mounting an organised secret attack via secret forums and the likes.

There's been some crackers I can tell ya.

All true though, and provably so, seeing as the entire contents of these 'secret forums' are now public knowledge.

Which is why so many of the two-faced cunts flounced recently... they got hacked or infiltrated, and all their dirty tricks and hidden "Files" were made public.

So it's hardly a conspiracy theory if it's 100 percent true, and proven... fucking funny though...

:D :D :D
 
Dilzybhoy said:
I've noticed another new trend in conspiraloonary...

RE the <removed> are all mounting an organised secret attack via secret forums and the likes.
Please don't post up references to the other site.

They may be unable to stop themselves talking about us, but I'm not having it here.

It's time to move on because I'm bored shitless with them.
 
DoUsAFavour said:
So you don't find it ever so slightly dodgy that, among others, 'Dick' Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield signed a document presented to GWB expressing the need for a 9/11 esq attack on home soil?

How queer. :)

I find it hard to believe, and I'm guessing many others do as well, that any real socialist would not doubt that the US admin are more than capable of killing thousands of their own citizens, and millions of Johnny Foreigners for a few quid.

Genuine question : There are plenty who are sceptical that 9/11, when it actually happened, had been planned and executed by US Government, and who are also sceptical of most of the CTs surrounding it.

Are you assuming that said sceptics are necesarily also sceptical about the possibility that an attack of some sort, of that kind, was discussed inside US Goverment circles before hand? The two strands of scepticism are NOT the same.

Proof that Rumsfeld and other Neocons might have had such discussions, or even that they discussed how such events might play to the US Government's advantage, does not in any way amount to proof that they actually went as far as to plan and execute them. The two are not the same.

They certainly did reap political advantage afterwards -- again, not proof that they engineered 9/11 in advance rather than take advantage subsequently.

And in any case your case is harldly helped by all the wild and implausible speculation surrounding everything to do with 9/11, flourishing all over some very loopy websites -- this hardly helps your argument.

You appear to have been assuming, over several posts, that sceptics of conspiracy theories have opinions essentually shaped by the US Governmnent and establishment propoganda. If you argue along those lines, you'll lose the argument, because there's a very strong strand of CT-scepticism amongst left wing people who are ALSO very much cynical about, sceptical of and hostile to what the US Government has been getting up to.

Every time such independent minded and anti-establishment sceptics are insulted (even by implication) as dupes of Government propoganda for being sceptical about conspiracy theories, the more hostile those sceptics will become to the conspiracists. Very few conspiracy theorists appear to have any clear grasp of this simple fact.

Until they get their heads around it, they will fail to convince time after time.
 
William of Walworth said:
They certainly did reap political advantage afterwards -- again, not proof that they engineered 9/11 in advance rather than take advantage subsequently.

And in any case your case is harldly helped by all the wild and implausible speculation surroounding everything to do with 9/11, flourishing all over some very loopy websites, hardly helps your argument.

NORAD

please 'pay' attention to my stance
 
editor said:
I'm having trouble believing that the globe's sole superpower would set about the highly perilous political path of mass murdering their own citizens and blowing up a large chunk of their greatest city supposedly to provide a pretext to invade a weaker country - especially when their CV is already packed with examples of invasions/bombings elsewhere.
Hear, hear.
 
zArk said:

You lack logic -- that link is irrelevant to what I posted (and me saying that does not in any way mean I'm indiffernt to children suffering or whatever, as you've come close to saying of other posters earlier in this thread :mad: )

I was agreeing with pembrokestephen's post-- why Fisk has credibility while most conspiracists don't.
 
By your arguments Conspiracy Theories are as valid as any Government Theory.

One doesnt want to lose sight of the real issue, yet what real issue is there?

Conspiracy theories and official investigations are all as valid as one another.

Following through your arguments to be wary of conspiracy theories just as one should be as wary as official explanations leaves one in a position of pure subjectivity. Thus validating all theories, no matter how absurd because they are based upon subjectivity.

Free expression is paramount.

So there one has it. No 'truth', no 'facts' just an eternal mire of subjective voices. One can critise another explanation for its validity but ones own position is based upon as much validity as the conspiraloons.

This is following the arguments previous and is not my stance.
 
fractionMan said:
Nutter ^^^

Edit: whoops. Thought this was the honest opinion thread...

ahh Mr Reality enters the chamber.

care to explain what reality is Mr Fraction?
 
zArk said:
By your arguments Conspiracy Theories are as valid as any Government Theory.
Sorry are you really saying that any conspiracy theory is as valid as any "government theory" (whatever that is)?
 
editor said:
Sorry are you really saying that any conspiracy theory is as valid as any "government theory" (whatever that is)?
I think he means that, "If it isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a government theory."

(if so...........) Priceless. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom