Thread: Just another Government conspiracy theory

I bet you hear it all the time. People are always like the U.S. is so corrupt and the government lies, but I barely ever hear people try and explain why.

so here i go and let me explain that some of this is my opinion but in no way is it ignorant, I'm simply taking facts and associating meaning to them. You could easily argue against it as there are facts for both sides of an argument and what it comes down to is do you trust the U.S. government enough to ignore some striking facts.


Rewind back to the cold war: Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other Muslim nations are stuck in a time of poverty and revolution. Communist regimes are begining to gain political power and influence in many Muslims nations.

A radical islamist group operating under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden erupts on to the scene to combat the forigien communist influence. When the CIA gains wind of this the American government without public consent and in secrecy directly provides funds, weapons, as well as training to Middle eastern governments with the purpose of this aid being indirectly diverted entirely to Al Qauda.

Sadly many of the people who received training from the CIA such as how to create bombs, are the modern day leaders of Al Qaudea. Everything said above is a fact.

Now fast forward, everyone knows about September 11th, but what people don't know is there were previous attempts to blow up the world trade towers all of which the U.S. government acknowledged Osama Bin Laden was directly linked. This is when Osama Bin Laden was at large in Iraq masquerading around Public ally, the CIA for some reason decided not to take actions against Al Qaueda.

The question you should be thinking right now is why did the CIA wait until after September 11th to wage their war on terrorism?

The answer is because without September 11th we would not have a reason to invade Iraq.

But wait you say, the reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD's and because of Saddam Hussien who was basically waging a small genocide in Iraq.

Well whats the difference between North Korea, and Iraq? North Korea is not suspected of developing WMD's, no they're not suspected, they have confirmed that they are. North Korea also has a violent dictator who is hostile to the U.S. and waging a even more gruesome genocide. So why would we invade Iraq and not North Korea?

Because Iraq has oil.

Now I might be able to understand America accusing Iraq of WMD's and allowing the U.N. to go in and properly investigate. But America did not wait for the U.N. to investigate, INSTEAD THEY INVADE.

Now why would America do a thing like that? Maybe because America personally wanted to occupy Iraq so they would be in charge of rebuilding the nation instead of the U.N.

Why would America want to be in charge of rebuilding the nation? So that they could set up the Iraqi economy so that it would be dependent on Exporting Petroleum to the U.S. giving the U.S. much more economic as well as world influence.

This is why there are private government companies such as Haleburton whose only purpose is rebuilding nations.

Now don't be confused in thinking that the president or all of the public figures of our government are responsible for this or that they even know about it. Instead know that these people have been manipulated by greater economic forces in our country everything is based on money.

I could go on for hours honestly I could write about it better and I could give facts, dates, and numbers. I could give you a much more in depth explanation as well as the actual people who are responsible for this, but theres no point in that.

First it was communists now its terrorists to spread hysteria.

Doesnt really matter why we went their in the first place, does it? Thousands of lives were saved, and Saddam was taken out of power. That right their is reason enough. And now that were there, we cant just pull out. If we did that, well be labeled as weaklings among everything else they call us, and the attacks will come bigger and better planned. Right now extremists are scared because they want us out of their country so they can go back to what they consider normal and happy lives. And thats the only reason were not being attacked at home right now. If they did, wed have an excuse to stay even longer.

Why we dont attack Korea? Cause if we did wed get bombed till kingdom come. With Iraq, they were more of an immediate threat if we didnt do something fast, the guys are suicidal, theyre willing to take the chance that we'd launch nukes back. Korea, the time to attack was before they had WMD's pointed at us, and now that they do, that cant do anything because we have more than them and they dont want to die.

Atleast, those are some of my unedited quick thoughts.

Basically

Saddam=bad
Saddam out of power=worth the lives that were taken in this war
Terrorists=willing to launch nukes even if it meant ww3 and end of life
Koreans=scared of world war 3 and end of life
Bush=realized he had to act quick and take out the terrorist threat even if it meant the world hates him before theirs no one in the world left TO hate him

It is indeed obvious that governments are using deliberately created threats to push through things which give greater control and restrict personal freedoms. In England at the moment we are get a 42 day detention without charge foisted on us and already have a new stop and search rule for the police, this after a single terrorist attack by Muslim extremists, yet during the preceding twenty years we survived a prolonged main land terror campaign by the IRA without any of this, something stinks.

I don’t suppose it would be anything to do with the fact the Irish blew themselves up from time to time whereas the current round of frighteners started with a devastatingly successful 9/11?

This is not really a conspiracy theory since all of the facts are public information. Just no one seems to really be questioning things anymore. We did the exact same thing with the Panama Canal, in Guatemala, various South Pacific Islands (need those military bases), and so on. American imperialism is strong and well today.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

I don’t suppose it would be anything to do with the fact the Irish blew themselves up from time to time whereas the current round of frighteners started with a devastatingly successful 9/11?

I really don't think so, the second attempt by the "current round" was a total failure with none of the bombs going off and those involved now serving long sentences. You make the IRA sound like comic amateurs, they were not. I can't remember any blowing themselves up, though they may well have done it's a common hazard of messing with explosives. I do remember them blowing up the Baltic Exchange and Birmingham town centre as well as dropping mortar rounds into the prime ministers garden in Downing Street and wiping out the hotel where the heads of the Conservative party were staying in Brighton. The "current round" were nowhere near as efficient or effective, since those first two attempts we have seen nothing of them outside intelligence and police scare stories. On the face of it there is no justification for 42 days, I think Oz with 12 days is probably the closest western democracy to our present 28 day limit, Canada allows only one day, Amerika says four I think, but cheats of course by using rendition to places that are not squeamish about things like freedom.

As for Vaulter, you've employed some really really terribly awfully faulty logic. One, you've started off with the concept of "bad" which is only relative to you and those who think like you. "Bad" has no real definition excepting those relative to what is "good" and likewise, "good" has no finite definition except that which is not "bad." Subsequently, the basis for your reasoning is faulty, we cannot accept that Saddam is either "good" or "bad." We can certainly see him as harmful to U.S. interests (the real reason for the war in iraq), or a cause of undesirable loss of life (which nearly all loss of life should be), but to call him "bad" instantly creates a fault in logic.

My definition of bad is that he was committing genocide. I consider death of innocent people who oppose a dictator as bad. That is my definition. If you have no morals, then your definition of bad will change. But as for me, anybody committing genocide is bad in my book.

Two, you have assigned value to lives as if you are some sort of divine being able to say who should live and who should die. Should a boy, raised in ignorance, be killed for what he didn't know? Even if we were to accept your axiom, that Saddam was indeed "bad," does someone deserve to die if they serve him after being told and shown only that he is "good?" Does this mean that you deserve to die if some foreign power says your leader is "bad?" And that it would be worth it?

I have assigned value to lives…No I havnt. I have assigned value to numbers, as in 10 million people are greater than 100. I think in my own personal opinion, more lives were saved by this war than if we hadn’t have done anything. Your opinion may differ, thats your own personal opinion and I wont be able to change that. And it’s a sad thing that people were raised to believe that we deserve to die, but because they believe that, weve got to protect ourselves. And the only way full proof way to protect ourselves that anyone so far has found is war, which is horribly sad. But it’s better that 2 million die than for 2 billion to die in my own personal opinion.

Three a terrorist is anyone who uses fear to force others to adhere to desired policies. In other words, the U.S. Government along with every other government ever to exist, is made up of terrorists. We (and they) do it all the time. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. The simple "reminder" of a "terrorist" threat so often put fourth by our government entices fear and moves others to adhere to their desired policies. So by your logic, the U.S. government is willing to "launch nukes even if it meant ww3 and end of life."

By your definition of terrorist, you’re correct. But my definition of terrorist is different. Im specifically talking about Islamic extremists who are willing to die for no other purpose than too kill as many people as they can. (and once again, id rather one extremist die, than for another bomb to go off and kill another 10 people) And US isn’t willing to launch nukes and cause ww3. Ever heard of a little thing called the Cold War?

Four: all rational human beings should be scared of WW3 and "end of life," so I really don't get the point here.

Not if youre a terrorist by the definition I’m using. Willing to die so long as you can bring as many people with you as you can.

Five: Bush realized that it was in U.S. interests to oust Saddam and install a government friendly to the United States. Remember, a government that cannot protect and preserve itself cannot protect and preserve it's people - this is a basic tenant of government. Subsequently, the government acts first to protect and preserve itself and those members who comprise it. Finance is the most assured way for a member of the government to protect and preserve themselves, and thus the government will act in such a way that it will receive finances. Finances come from the wealthy, such as owners of oil companies, who would benefit from a U.S. friendly environment in Iraq. U.S. interests, then, are henged upon the interests of "certain white men" (I quote Zinn here; his book really ought to be read).

Agreed. I don’t get where the “certain white men” comes in really. But the government needs money to be successful. Oil is becoming scarce and Bush thinks that we need to have ties with major oil exporting countries. I understand that. He’s killing 2 birds with one stone as it were. I don’t really care why we went there in the first place. I believe were saving millions, if not billions of lives. You can disagree with that all you want, but Saddam had WMD’s. And even if he never had nukes, then I consider the way he killed his people, with mustard gas and all that stuff, to be WMD’s. The guy was well on his way to be the next Hitler. His main target, Christianity and America.



I was thinking about it, if the war had gone exactly as planned, and we weren’t still there, would America get a better deal on gas than any other country? I guess im not too familiar on how that all works, and I’m PROBABLY way wrong, but everyone would get the same deal on gas wouldn’t they? I’m not arguing with anyone on this point, Im just asking cause I really have no idea. Its not a subject Im real familiar with.

Wow, whats up with this sudden change in font

Originally Posted by A Vaulter's Insanity

My definition of bad is that he was committing genocide. I consider death of innocent people who oppose a dictator as bad. That is my definition. If you have no morals, then your definition of bad will change. But as for me, anybody committing genocide is bad in my book.



I have assigned value to lives…No I havnt. I have assigned value to numbers, as in 10 million people are greater than 100. I think in my own personal opinion, more lives were saved by this war than if we hadn’t have done anything. Your opinion may differ, thats your own personal opinion and I wont be able to change that. And it’s a sad thing that people were raised to believe that we deserve to die, but because they believe that, weve got to protect ourselves. And the only way full proof way to protect ourselves that anyone so far has found is war, which is horribly sad. But it’s better that 2 million die than for 2 billion to die in my own personal opinion.



By your definition of terrorist, you’re correct. But my definition of terrorist is different. Im specifically talking about Islamic extremists who are willing to die for no other purpose than too kill as many people as they can. (and once again, id rather one extremist die, than for another bomb to go off and kill another 10 people) And US isn’t willing to launch nukes and cause ww3. Ever heard of a little thing called the Cold War?



Not if youre a terrorist by the definition I’m using. Willing to die so long as you can bring as many people with you as you can.



Agreed. I don’t get where the “certain white men” comes in really. But the government needs money to be successful. Oil is becoming scarce and Bush thinks that we need to have ties with major oil exporting countries. I understand that. He’s killing 2 birds with one stone as it were. I don’t really care why we went there in the first place. I believe were saving millions, if not billions of lives. You can disagree with that all you want, but Saddam had WMD’s. And even if he never had nukes, then I consider the way he killed his people, with mustard gas and all that stuff, to be WMD’s. The guy was well on his way to be the next Hitler. His main target, Christianity and America.



I was thinking about it, if the war had gone exactly as planned, and we weren’t still there, would America get a better deal on gas than any other country? I guess im not too familiar on how that all works, and I’m PROBABLY way wrong, but everyone would get the same deal on gas wouldn’t they? I’m not arguing with anyone on this point, Im just asking cause I really have no idea. Its not a subject Im real familiar with.

Wow, whats up with this sudden change in font

I hate Fox News. And so should you.

I agree with you that genocide is "bad". It goes beyond bad. That is why it is considered a crime against humanity. It's bad times 6.5 billion. On that basis, I supported the removal of Saddam.

Falsehood #1, and a mistake a lot of people make: Terrorist are not mindless drones, killing for the sheer love of the act. They have political goals. In Islamic Extremism, those goals are the removal of the U.S. presence and influence in the Middle East, removal of the Jews from the Levant, a revived Caliphate (which hasn't existed since the Mongels trampled the last one), and a unified Muslim state stretching from Morocco to the West to Aghanistan in the East. As much as you may disagree with those goals, and god knows I disagree with most of them as well, you have do recognize that they do have grievances with the West, and are not simply "Out to kill as many of us as they can."

Falsehood #2: We saved lives by invading Iraq? Wrong.

Amnesty International Report 2008 •

Read that. 2,000,000 refugees, 2,000,000 in-state refugees, torture abuses by both sectarian and GOVERNMENTAL forces, car bombings, suicide bombings, arbitrary arrests by the government and Coalition forces...what does this all mean? Iraq is in chaos. Saddam may have been a terrible dictator, but at least SOME people were safe when he was around, by virtue of stability. At any given time, ANYBODY can be killed in Iraq now.

Falsehood #3: "His next target was Chrisitianity and America." Wow. I am speechless. I'll let someone else field that one. Or should I do my own dirty work. Na, I'll leave this.

Originally Posted by Industrial

I bet you hear it all the time. People are always like the U.S. is so corrupt and the government lies, but I barely ever hear people try and explain why.

so here i go and let me explain that some of this is my opinion but in no way is it ignorant, I'm simply taking facts and associating meaning to them. You could easily argue against it as there are facts for both sides of an argument and what it comes down to is do you trust the U.S. government enough to ignore some striking facts.


Rewind back to the cold war: Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other Muslim nations are stuck in a time of poverty and revolution. Communist regimes are begining to gain political power and influence in many Muslims nations.

A radical islamist group operating under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden erupts on to the scene to combat the forigien communist influence. When the CIA gains wind of this the American government without public consent and in secrecy directly provides funds, weapons, as well as training to Middle eastern governments with the purpose of this aid being indirectly diverted entirely to Al Qauda.

Sadly many of the people who received training from the CIA such as how to create bombs, are the modern day leaders of Al Qaudea. Everything said above is a fact.

Now fast forward, everyone knows about September 11th, but what people don't know is there were previous attempts to blow up the world trade towers all of which the U.S. government acknowledged Osama Bin Laden was directly linked. This is when Osama Bin Laden was at large in Iraq masquerading around Public ally, the CIA for some reason decided not to take actions against Al Qaueda.

The question you should be thinking right now is why did the CIA wait until after September 11th to wage their war on terrorism?

The answer is because without September 11th we would not have a reason to invade Iraq.

But wait you say, the reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD's and because of Saddam Hussien who was basically waging a small genocide in Iraq.

Well whats the difference between North Korea, and Iraq? North Korea is not suspected of developing WMD's, no they're not suspected, they have confirmed that they are. North Korea also has a violent dictator who is hostile to the U.S. and waging a even more gruesome genocide. So why would we invade Iraq and not North Korea?

Because Iraq has oil.

Now I might be able to understand America accusing Iraq of WMD's and allowing the U.N. to go in and properly investigate. But America did not wait for the U.N. to investigate, INSTEAD THEY INVADE.

Now why would America do a thing like that? Maybe because America personally wanted to occupy Iraq so they would be in charge of rebuilding the nation instead of the U.N.

Why would America want to be in charge of rebuilding the nation? So that they could set up the Iraqi economy so that it would be dependent on Exporting Petroleum to the U.S. giving the U.S. much more economic as well as world influence.

This is why there are private government companies such as Haleburton whose only purpose is rebuilding nations.

Now don't be confused in thinking that the president or all of the public figures of our government are responsible for this or that they even know about it. Instead know that these people have been manipulated by greater economic forces in our country everything is based on money.

I could go on for hours honestly I could write about it better and I could give facts, dates, and numbers. I could give you a much more in depth explanation as well as the actual people who are responsible for this, but theres no point in that.

First it was communists now its terrorists to spread hysteria.

Is that radical? No. Everyone knows that. It's common knowledge.

Of course no WMDs where never found: there weren't any. The prime minister TB had to admit that after none were found. He said, It was an honest mistake, he acted like anyone would have...

Someone I know was in the army. heres the thing: They were already in Iraq ready to go way before the supposed Un reports and political Chess playing. I'm watching a debate on TV on whether we should go to war with Iraq, while he is already there and telling me they're about to unleash hell. Some people will believe anything as long as the person who tells them holds some power.

The Armed forces where not implicated in this. The government "intelligence" had told them that Saddam could launch a WMD assault in 45 minutes

I hate Fox News. And so should you.

Oh I do. Haha. Im so sick of the media and their BS

I agree with you that genocide is "bad". It goes beyond bad. That is why it is considered a crime against humanity. It's bad times 6.5 billion. On that basis, I supported the removal of Saddam.

So we can agree on something. Happy day!

Falsehood #1, and a mistake a lot of people make: Terrorist are not mindless drones, killing for the sheer love of the act. They have political goals. In Islamic Extremism, those goals are the removal of the U.S. presence and influence in the Middle East, removal of the Jews from the Levant, a revived Caliphate (which hasn't existed since the Mongels trampled the last one), and a unified Muslim state stretching from Morocco to the West to Aghanistan in the East. As much as you may disagree with those goals, and god knows I disagree with most of them as well, you have do recognize that they do have grievances with the West, and are not simply "Out to kill as many of us as they can."

I never said they’re mindless drones…the political and religious leaders have very specific aims I’m sure. But what exactly was the purpose of 9/11 for Osama? It didn’t do much for him. He got fame, and now hes going to be on the run for the rest of his life if he’s not dead already. I can’t see any political purpose behind it. They HATE Americans more than they hate anybody else, and they hate 2/3 of the world. They may want morocco to Afghanistan, but they also want to see everybody else under the crescent moon also and are willing to kill for the cause. (Now keep in mind that I have nothing against Islam, I actually have good Islam friends, but Im talking about the extremists here) So the leaders aren’t mindless drones, but their followers are.

Falsehood #2: We saved lives by invading Iraq? Wrong.

Amnesty International Report 2008 •

Read that. 2,000,000 refugees, 2,000,000 in-state refugees, torture abuses by both sectarian and GOVERNMENTAL forces, car bombings, suicide bombings, arbitrary arrests by the government and Coalition forces...what does this all mean? Iraq is in chaos. Saddam may have been a terrible dictator, but at least SOME people were safe when he was around, by virtue of stability. At any given time, ANYBODY can be killed in Iraq now.

I’m well aware of the tragedies going on and of the numerous different death tolls. But if we hadn’t have done anything, then the genocide would have continued, saddam would have gained more power. If he didn’t have WMD’s when we invaded, we can be pretty sure that he was working for it (and I still think he had nukes, and I still think the weapons he used against his own people are WMD’s). 9/11 was just a start for many extremists. They want to see us burn to the ground. We attacked before it could get worse. Given it was a pretty poorly planned war and their were more deaths than what it should have been. But I still think more lives were saved by this route than by doing nothing.

Falsehood #3: "His next target was Chrisitianity and America." Wow. I am speechless. I'll let someone else field that one. Or should I do my own dirty work. Na, I'll leave this.

They’ve been targeting Christianity since the crusades, and Christians have been targeting them since the crusades too. The tensions have never left between the 2 biggest religions. They pray to Allah that America will burn; it’s a massive hate campaign. They want us out of the picture, and they’re using religion as their motivator cause it is the best motivator. That is one thing that the media actually gets correct. They despise us.