"Boston Bombing: What You Aren't Being Told". Your thoughts.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I was trolling through the internet and found this video.

Now, normally I just pass these sort of things off as conspiracy nuts voicing their opinion, but this one is a little different.

The reason I even watched the thing to the end is because they highlighted that press conference. I saw that thing live and I knew something was strange when they cut off the reporters question.

Does this seem to have any merit to you, or does this seem like just another propaganda/conspiracy nut video?

For the sake of my sanity I avoid conspiracy videos, so could you give us an overview of the points they made? Historically youtube conspiracy videos are notirious for manipulating and distorting facts to push their own beliefs.

Perhaps we should turn this into the general conspiray theory thread to cast the discussion net as wide as possible?

Shaoken:
For the sake of my sanity I avoid conspiracy videos, so could you give us an overview of the points they made? Historically youtube conspiracy videos are notirious for manipulating and distorting facts to push their own beliefs.

Perhaps we should turn this into the general conspiray theory thread to cast the discussion net as wide as possible?

It's not really a typical nut job video, so it shouldn't hurt you to watch it.

As for the discussion, I don't really want to talk about conspiracy theorists in general.

Shaoken:
For the sake of my sanity I avoid conspiracy videos, so could you give us an overview of the points they made? Historically youtube conspiracy videos are notirious for manipulating and distorting facts to push their own beliefs.

Perhaps we should turn this into the general conspiray theory thread to cast the discussion net as wide as possible?

It's FINALLY time for the gouvernment conspiracy. I was wondering what took them so long.

Basically:
- there are some guys at this mass event who wear the same trousers (khaki pants), which also match the trousers of a security company (ooo, it's a khaki conspiracy!) and one guy apparently has that company's logo on his cap (it's the punisher skull basically and it's a bad angle) and at a press conference the speaker didn't answer a yelling guy claiming he had picture proof of those contractors
- their parents say "they've been framed"
- some footage of a naked dude being escorted by police, who kinda sorta maybe in a way looks like the prime suspect who got shot by police and so CONSPIRACY
- apparently bombing Boston was the best possible idea the gouvernment could come up with to distract the press and secretly pass CISPA through the house (but not the senate yet, we'll probably see another attack soon!) and some stock market deregulation thingy
- the aftermath raids are a conditioning for a police state and they're clearly preparing for a complete takeover (following links to over videos which I just can't get myself to watch too)

There is only one way I could describe my thoughts during the whole video...

Yep, and Abraham Lincoln was a closeted Pakistani, contrails are government sprayed chemicals, and a secret fraternity runs the government.

Honestly, the video just seems like the usual insanity to me.

I'm always amused at these conspiracy theories. They can organize all this sinister crap, but can't keep some fools on the internet from "discovering" their plot and exposing them on Youtube?

Spare me.

Step by step
1- There were government agents on site.
Rational answer-Of course there fucking were. It is a public event, the government tends to put security at that sort of thing. Unfortunately, in the words of the IRA (counter terrorist operators) have to be lucky all the time (terrorists) have to be lucky only once. In this event the terrorists got through the security, but that does not negate the reason the security was there.
2-These operators were from the private security company 'craft international'
rational answer-Most operators from most armed forces nowadays wear khaki and skulls are also very common. Someone wearing skulls and khaki tells me about as much as someone wearing boots.
3-Government refusing to answer questions
rational answer- The question was clearly a conspiracy nut and if you engage them it only encourages them. Oftentimes they will rely on having one fact/idea that they have got early and twisted to deny you an effective response. A common one that comes up in 9/11 discussions for example is the false idea that there were no Jewish people in the towers on the day; A conspiracy nut will bring this up, and as you do not know that it is false you cannot effectively respond. As such it is best to just refuse to engage.
4-We have evidence that you can also find without research
rational answer-If they did, they would put it up for the viewer to evaluate.
5-The tsarenev Parents claim their sons were framed.
Rational answer-my mum says I'm cool. Our parents do not want to think the worst of us, and will believe strange things if it means we are innocent.
6-Video footage of elder brother being taken alive
rational answer- First off, it does not even look like him, (one has chest hair and the other does not as an example) and even if it did, in this blurry, low quality footage, what does the fact that an olive skinned dark haired young male was arrested, other that there are more than two non-white people in the US?
7-Funny voice mockery of the idea that anyone disagrees with them
rational answer-No real response, just that this is a douche move.
8-Ted gunderson
rational answer-And where is his evidence, he simply claims that the CIA planned essentially every terrorist attack of the modern age but does not back that up at all.
9-Motive of media distraction for legislation to pass
rational answer- I may be just a simple colonial boy, but our Parliament scheduals this sort of thing in advance, so if the media was going to cover it, would it not have done so already? And is bombing your own event really the best way to distract the media? Why not marry J-lo of to christolf Waltz or something?
10-Heavy handed response
rational answer- The video claims that this is an intended part of the secret government plan, but is it not more likely that the Boston police and the FBI are, having failed to stop an attack, hurt and angry and desperate to make right, even if that does involve heavy handed tactics? I mean, to me this looks like them trying to regain face more than anything else
11-A lot of ranting about police state
rational answer- The guys obviously got a screw loose, and claims that the attacks will continue without backing it up. In addition, he claims that suspects are just being killed to avoid a trial which ignores the younger tsarnev.
12-Directed at political disidents
rational answer-There is no evidence of this, like at all. In addition, aside from all moral concerns, there is no benefit to be gained from attacking the fringe political movements in the US. Take occupy for example, left alone, it discredited itself very rapidly (in political terms it lasted a much shorter time than say stalinism) and required no black bagging. The fringe movements in the US are just not worth the effort or resources that it would take to put them down.
13-Reach out to the men and women of the Military police and DHS
rational answer- The idea that the men and women of the military, police, security and intelligence services need to be educated about this 'conspiracy' by a bunch of tossbags who have never worn a uniform is both ludicrous and self defeating. First off, the idea that the trained men and women needed to pull off a terrorist attack/military coup can be sourced from these organisations without the others knowing shows a complete misunderstanding of those communities. Cops would know if other cops were taking part in this. Soldiers would know if their mates were planting IEDs etc etc. As such, for the organisation to be involved, it must have a very high participation rate and attempting to involve them in this bullshit resistance is a bad plano

While I don't think it's the full 'evil gubmint!' angle these guys are pushing something doesn't feel right about the brothers being radical Islamists. When it comes to radical Islamists most of the attacks seem to be motivated by American led aggression throughout the Middle East - we attack Muslims so they want payback (a very vicious cycle). Three flavours of attack; kill lots of civilians to show that America isn't the only one that can kill lots of innocents, attack something we all use (like public transport (e.g. the 7/7 bombings)) to sow fear or attack something political to raise the profile of the issue. The finish line of a marathon just doesn't feel like it fits any of those categories - the body count's too low, marathons aren't part of everyday life and there's nothing particularly political about it (bar Newtown parents which would be meaningless in terms of the War on Terror).

It could be they chickened out of pulling an attack at a target with a higher body count and chose the marathon for the publicity but if they wanted the publicity why not have a statement uploaded? If the entire point was to fight back over American aggression on the Muslim world wouldn't you want to admit it and make people know why you did it?

As for the idea of an inside job why would they need a bomb? A bomber sure but an actual bomb? The idea is that the media frenzy covers up any dodgy government plans and allows the idea of a police state to become more accepted; why does this need an explosion? If that's the goal just set up a bomb scare that special forces stop at the last second - has the exact same result but nobody dies. You then stir up a panic about finding the culprit(s) and it plays out exactly the same as the Boston bombing has. When you can get the same results by just pretending why actually do it?


Conspiracies aside the scariest thing is news groups like FOX putting the idea in America's collective subconscious that it's ok to start throwing out the constitution when it comes to people who aren't 'proper' Americans (*cough* Muslim *cough*). If people start thinking it's ok to erode liberties if there's a terror threat how long before anything is enough to get your rights revoked?

It's depressing and kinda funny that the people who shout the loudest about a police state are also the ones shouting for police state tactics.

EDIT: If anyone wants to see the daily show bit on this:

To my understanding - while these two were Islamists, especially the older brother - they weren't connected to any larger Islamist group. They had no proper "terror training", they were self-radicalized via the internet, especially some of the propaganda as well as suggestions how to create terror tools floating around there.

That's why a lot of the "typical markings" of Islamist terror as we know them from Al Qaida don't apply here: Why it wasn't a higher profile target, why it wasn't a suicide attack, why the alleged terrorists fled/tried to flee and hide, why nobody took responsibility for the act shortly after it happened for propaganda purposes, why no political statement was made etc.; now, assuming it's true that they were Islamists yet unconnected to a larger terror network, all these things would make sense, I think.

Could, hypothetically, that premise be faulty, though? I suppose. Still, I'd rather look for evidence for that. Conspiracists tend to see patterns where there isn't anything there and fill the blanks with their imagination and preconceived notions. Not how you want to go about things when you are interested in the actual truth of the matter.

As for FOX? Daily Show did an amazing segment showing FOX hosts arguing to throw out amendment after amendment of the constitution because of this. It was great. I love when these people crying the loudest about the constitution and freedom are shown to be the biggest hypocrites, the ones who think "the constitution should only apply when I think it necessary", the ones who think authoritarianism and giant government are awesome.

Here's a link to an article with a stream of it. The stream doesn't work outside the USA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/jon-stewart-fox-news-shre_n_3153921.html
But you can just watch the according full episode instead, like I did.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-24-2013-bassem-youssef

Well, it's not quite usual conspiracy theorist fare, because he does quite a good job of sounding like a down-to-earth fella.

He's not, but he does a good imitation of one.

The thing that sprung to my mind: He points out the guy in the Boston crowd with what looks like the Craft company skull logo on his cap. If these private security spooks were taking part in a super-secret conspiracy to bomb Boston and frame two other guys for it, why the hell would they turn up wearing their company logo on their fucking caps?!

EDIT: Y'know why this is a shame, though? The American secret services have given us so bloody much reason to distrust them, what with their detention centres and their authorised torture. They actually do do evil shit to people. And the prevalence (or at least wide knowledge) of nutjob conspiracies like these detracts from the valid distrust.

In short, people like this make people who distrust their secret services look like madmen. And it's a shame.

My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

So a lack of bias indicates bias? That's a strange viewpoint.

Hmm, I'm never really inclined to believe anything about conspiracies on the Internet, this is the same place that brought us satanist musicians and numerous 9/11 videos based on flimsy, uneducated and sometimes false evidence.

Besides, the whole point of the conspiracy videos is to open 'your' eyes to the things the government and media don't want you to know, so why the fuck do you trust some one you've never met on the Internet who can spot that triangles are a common shape and satanic influences in song writing exist and apparently constitutes free mason involvement and devil worship.

For all we know the Illuminati, after years of trying to destroy the upright governments of the West have finally turned to making videos on You tube in the hopes of undermining us.

Somebody please make a conspiracy video that conspiracy videos are controlled and distributed by the Illuminati, CIA, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Global Banking, BP and the New World Order Initiative and Markus Persson. Go.

Rant Over

EDIT: All that said if anything in the conspiracy videos is true then we will never know and so it is an interesting area where you are forced to believe people with no credentials, no face, no relation or our elected leaders who have a history of lying, deceit and greed.

Sorry for being Off Topic, just had to be said

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

So a lack of bias indicates bias? That's a strange viewpoint.

Conspiracy theories and the people to promulgate them are a particular pet peeve of mine. I'm also of the idea that you are responsible for what you post/say/link to, and that people generally don't go out of their way to post conspiracy theories just because "why not?" Like the absurd 9/11 conspiracies, or the absurd Benghazi conspiracies, or the grassy knoll, or Whitewater, or blood for oil, or the lizard people, etc. once the basic framework of a conspiracy theory is established and spread (much easier now with the internet), it is nearly impossible to get rid of it no matter how stupid the idea is because conspiracy theories are self-sustaining entities that rely on faulty logic and doubting any reasonable authority on the subject. Nip them in the bud and you don't have to deal with as much idiocy from people who don't know better.

Except the society that controls the world's governments. That's real. We meet on Tuesdays and prefer to call ourselves the "First-Wives club."

the clockmaker:
Step by step
1- There were government agents on site.
Rational answer-Of course there fucking were. It is a public event, the government tends to put security at that sort of thing. Unfortunately, in the words of the IRA (counter terrorist operators) have to be lucky all the time (terrorists) have to be lucky only once. In this event the terrorists got through the security, but that does not negate the reason the security was there.
2-These operators were from the private security company 'craft international'
rational answer-Most operators from most armed forces nowadays wear khaki and skulls are also very common. Someone wearing skulls and khaki tells me about as much as someone wearing boots.
3-Government refusing to answer questions
rational answer- The question was clearly a conspiracy nut and if you engage them it only encourages them. Oftentimes they will rely on having one fact/idea that they have got early and twisted to deny you an effective response. A common one that comes up in 9/11 discussions for example is the false idea that there were no Jewish people in the towers on the day; A conspiracy nut will bring this up, and as you do not know that it is false you cannot effectively respond. As such it is best to just refuse to engage.
4-We have evidence that you can also find without research
rational answer-If they did, they would put it up for the viewer to evaluate.
5-The tsarenev Parents claim their sons were framed.
Rational answer-my mum says I'm cool. Our parents do not want to think the worst of us, and will believe strange things if it means we are innocent.
6-Video footage of elder brother being taken alive
rational answer- First off, it does not even look like him, (one has chest hair and the other does not as an example) and even if it did, in this blurry, low quality footage, what does the fact that an olive skinned dark haired young male was arrested, other that there are more than two non-white people in the US?
7-Funny voice mockery of the idea that anyone disagrees with them
rational answer-No real response, just that this is a douche move.
8-Ted gunderson
rational answer-And where is his evidence, he simply claims that the CIA planned essentially every terrorist attack of the modern age but does not back that up at all.
9-Motive of media distraction for legislation to pass
rational answer- I may be just a simple colonial boy, but our Parliament scheduals this sort of thing in advance, so if the media was going to cover it, would it not have done so already? And is bombing your own event really the best way to distract the media? Why not marry J-lo of to christolf Waltz or something?
10-Heavy handed response
rational answer- The video claims that this is an intended part of the secret government plan, but is it not more likely that the Boston police and the FBI are, having failed to stop an attack, hurt and angry and desperate to make right, even if that does involve heavy handed tactics? I mean, to me this looks like them trying to regain face more than anything else
11-A lot of ranting about police state
rational answer- The guys obviously got a screw loose, and claims that the attacks will continue without backing it up. In addition, he claims that suspects are just being killed to avoid a trial which ignores the younger tsarnev.
12-Directed at political disidents
rational answer-There is no evidence of this, like at all. In addition, aside from all moral concerns, there is no benefit to be gained from attacking the fringe political movements in the US. Take occupy for example, left alone, it discredited itself very rapidly (in political terms it lasted a much shorter time than say stalinism) and required no black bagging. The fringe movements in the US are just not worth the effort or resources that it would take to put them down.
13-Reach out to the men and women of the Military police and DHS
rational answer- The idea that the men and women of the military, police, security and intelligence services need to be educated about this 'conspiracy' by a bunch of tossbags who have never worn a uniform is both ludicrous and self defeating. First off, the idea that the trained men and women needed to pull off a terrorist attack/military coup can be sourced from these organisations without the others knowing shows a complete misunderstanding of those communities. Cops would know if other cops were taking part in this. Soldiers would know if their mates were planting IEDs etc etc. As such, for the organisation to be involved, it must have a very high participation rate and attempting to involve them in this bullshit resistance is a bad plano

Well that certainly pretty much covered it.

I hate conspiracy theories, they in general rely on ignoring overwhelming evidence to point out one little flaw that can't be explained (or can be, but they don't know it). It's sad that this happens after every tragic event, reminds me of those sandy hook conspiracy nuts.

Demon ID:

Well that certainly pretty much covered it.

I hate conspiracy theories, they in general rely on ignoring overwhelming evidence to point out one little flaw that can't be explained (or can be, but they don't know it). It's sad that this happens after every tragic event, reminds me of those sandy hook conspiracy nuts.

I find conspiracy theories interesting, to be honest.

Not because I believe them, I just find them entertaining.

As much as they are crazy, you've gotta admit you want them to be right about as much as you want a zombie apocalypse to happen - I'm tired, so I might not be explaining it well, but ZA is usually my go-to example for things people are morbidly curious about but wouldn't really want to happen or at least wouldn't enjoy if it did happen.

Questioning events needs to be done in my opinion, as not questioning them is how they can happen easily.

I really shouldn't post when tired. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore, but I hope someone can make sense of it.

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

Or I'm just throwing a lamb to the wolves because I'm a sadist.
I want people to pick it apart. Me saying that it's crazy right off the bat would only encourage people to agree with me and to not write anything meaningful.

Even if that was craft they are a military training company. If anything they where there to perform a training exercise. Also I wanna say it's common practice for cops to place someone on a roof to get a good view of an event or for a resident to go on the roof of the building to look down at a massive event below. As far as the tight lips of the city official... would you openly admit that during a training exercise to prevent terrorist bombings a terrorist bombing occurred? Also if craft was there in a false flag operation why the fuck where they wearing they're standard uniform, when seals. It seems like a stupid idea to dress yourself up in company colors to go bomb a marathon for just this reason.

The parents of the suspects also thought their son was a famous american boxer, he was actually an average amateur boxer almost up to pro level. The father also said his younger son(19) was in his second year of medical school... he was actually in his second year of college and I believe was about to drop out.

Finally the cops have already said the naked guy wasn't(edited) the older brother and I'm pretty sure it would be easy to figure out whether he was or wasn't for any journalist worth his salt.

The excuse is also ridiculous. CISPA and anything else being passed isn't some authoritarian bill it's dickish at worst and that is a stretch. Not to mention you have to have a serious amount of elected officials from the house and senate to be on bored with a false flag operation something that's not possible.

Tanner The Monotone:

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

Or I'm just throwing a lamb to the wolves because I'm a sadist.
I want people to pick it apart. Me saying that it's crazy right off the bat would only encourage people to agree with me and to not write anything meaningful.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where Glenn Beck is a millionaire and not in a back ward of a well-funded state institution. I do not trust people who just toss things out there and then deny it's what they are thinking, claiming it's only being put out there to be put out there. I assume that, since they put forth the effort, however minimal, to pass garbage along without an explicit and credible denial of purpose, they actually thought it was worthwhile enough to justify potentially having people believe it.

Like I noted before: these things take root very easily, and it's important to get rid of or contain them before they take root.

Conspiracy theories all spring from the same places. There are two places they grow from, and usually it is a mixture of both.

1. People like to feel "in the know" and it has been widely acknowledged that a large majority of humans adore the idea of knowing secrets or knowing things that other people don't know.

2. People hate the idea of random chaos. The idea that random acts of violence or terror, perpetrated by one or two people could cause such panic and such heartache scares people. The idea that a large, controlling government force made it all happen brings order to the idea of terrorism. "Oh, this happpened because the government did ___ because they wanted to control ____ by making ___ happen" makes everything seem a lot more stable than it really is.

These people expect more competence out of the government than I think is possible. I don't think even the most well run of military organizations could manage such a feat without someone who isn't cartoonishly evil outing this conspiracy.

The reason mr. govt. official didn't want to answer the question is because even recognizing it gives it legitimacy.

Also, another matter. If they wanted to hide it, why would they be wearing uniforms? I know competence isn't expected, but you don't see Muslim terrorists in the U.S. walking around everywhere in traditional Muslim garb. It draws attention, the last thing they want. I'm betting a PMC is at least as intelligent as a terrorist.

frobalt:

Demon ID:

Well that certainly pretty much covered it.

I hate conspiracy theories, they in general rely on ignoring overwhelming evidence to point out one little flaw that can't be explained (or can be, but they don't know it). It's sad that this happens after every tragic event, reminds me of those sandy hook conspiracy nuts.

I find conspiracy theories interesting, to be honest.

Not because I believe them, I just find them entertaining.

As much as they are crazy, you've gotta admit you want them to be right about as much as you want a zombie apocalypse to happen - I'm tired, so I might not be explaining it well, but ZA is usually my go-to example for things people are morbidly curious about but wouldn't really want to happen or at least wouldn't enjoy if it did happen.

Questioning events needs to be done in my opinion, as not questioning them is how they can happen easily.

I really shouldn't post when tired. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore, but I hope someone can make sense of it.

I get what you mean, it would be interesting if a conspiracy theory turned out to be true and there something interesting about connecting up all these clues to find a grand scene. It's just all too often I see these people turn on victims and declare them liars and cheats because 'they know they're right' and I think my dislike of them stems from that, like those Sandy Hook truthers.

If they just kept mostly to themselves I'd be okay with that, it's when they go hunting down victims to their home address to berate them as government liars/spys I just hang my head.

Demon ID:

frobalt:

Demon ID:

Well that certainly pretty much covered it.

I hate conspiracy theories, they in general rely on ignoring overwhelming evidence to point out one little flaw that can't be explained (or can be, but they don't know it). It's sad that this happens after every tragic event, reminds me of those sandy hook conspiracy nuts.

I find conspiracy theories interesting, to be honest.

Not because I believe them, I just find them entertaining.

As much as they are crazy, you've gotta admit you want them to be right about as much as you want a zombie apocalypse to happen - I'm tired, so I might not be explaining it well, but ZA is usually my go-to example for things people are morbidly curious about but wouldn't really want to happen or at least wouldn't enjoy if it did happen.

Questioning events needs to be done in my opinion, as not questioning them is how they can happen easily.

I really shouldn't post when tired. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore, but I hope someone can make sense of it.

I get what you mean, it would be interesting if a conspiracy theory turned out to be true and there something interesting about connecting up all these clues to find a grand scene. It's just all too often I see these people turn on victims and declare them liars and cheats because 'they know they're right' and I think my dislike of them stems from that, like those Sandy Hook truthers.

If they just kept mostly to themselves I'd be okay with that, it's when they go hunting down victims to their home address to berate them as government liars/spys I just hang my head.

This mentality is getting even worse. Like before the bombers where found everyone was combing through pictures of the marathon looking for people that could be the bombers. Even outing one kid(that had nothing to do with the bombings) that I believe is still missing. A lot of misinformation was spread not only be regular news sites but by homegrown detectives that are after the "thrill" of getting to the bottom of what they consider some grand mystery.

The Gentleman:
...the grassy knoll...

You believe in the magic bullet theory pushed by the Warren commission? Go watch Oliver Stone's JFK and come back here in 3 hours.

The Kennedy assassination is a turning point in our history, the most obvious conspiracy and the most bold. I have to wonder about the people who won't even acknowledge Kennedy was shot by more than one person, indicating a conspiracy all by itself. Are they the kind of people who want to use the state to legislate their views on others, therefore needing it in their mind to be good and wholesome? I have no idea.

Demon ID:

frobalt:

Demon ID:

Well that certainly pretty much covered it.

I hate conspiracy theories, they in general rely on ignoring overwhelming evidence to point out one little flaw that can't be explained (or can be, but they don't know it). It's sad that this happens after every tragic event, reminds me of those sandy hook conspiracy nuts.

I find conspiracy theories interesting, to be honest.

Not because I believe them, I just find them entertaining.

As much as they are crazy, you've gotta admit you want them to be right about as much as you want a zombie apocalypse to happen - I'm tired, so I might not be explaining it well, but ZA is usually my go-to example for things people are morbidly curious about but wouldn't really want to happen or at least wouldn't enjoy if it did happen.

Questioning events needs to be done in my opinion, as not questioning them is how they can happen easily.

I really shouldn't post when tired. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore, but I hope someone can make sense of it.

I get what you mean, it would be interesting if a conspiracy theory turned out to be true and there something interesting about connecting up all these clues to find a grand scene.

I like to imagine that someone somewhere in the 50s tried to convince everyone of a great CIA conspiracy to experiment on their own citizens and was ridiculed by everyone. Then decades later when the MKUltra documents were declassified went and tracked down every single person who told him he was crazy just so he could laugh at them.

EDIT: Ho boy, xDarc stumbled in here. This could be fun or it could lead to total disaster.

Yeah, yeah the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

Are conspiracy theories like this getting more commonplace around the world? I know there are several crazies who think the government are out to take them in the States, and are thus stockpiling guns, but the paranoia seems to be getting worse and worse.

xDarc:

The Gentleman:
...the grassy knoll...

You believe in the magic bullet theory pushed by the Warren commission? Go watch Oliver Stone's JFK and come back here in 3 hours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/oliver-stone-rewrites-history-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole movie isn't historically accurate at all.

Quaxar:
I like to imagine that someone somewhere in the 50s tried to convince everyone of a great CIA conspiracy to experiment on their own citizens and was ridiculed by everyone. Then decades later when the MKUltra documents were declassified went and tracked down every single person who told him he was crazy just so he could laugh at them.

The MKUltra program is also an example of how a conspiracy theory has a life of its own. The research was being done in order to understand the effects of LSD and other drugs on unsuspecting individuals, with potential clandestine field applications that never really came to fruition. Fundamentally they were mainly worried about individual agents, mainly Soviet sleepers, not controlling the populous.

Frission:
Yeah, yeah the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

Are conspiracy theories like this commonplace in the States? I know there are several crazies who think the government are out to take them and are thus stockpiling guns, but the paranoia seems to be getting worse and worse.

I doin't think it's any worse now than it has been in the past. The problem is that with the internet and sympathetic media outlets looking to secure ratings, they have a much louder voice.

xDarc:

The Gentleman:
...the grassy knoll...

You believe in the magic bullet theory pushed by the Warren commission? Go watch Oliver Stone's JFK and come back here in 3 hours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/oliver-stone-rewrites-history-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

The whole movie isn't historically accurate at all.

I was originally planning on just relinking Moviebob's video on conspiracy theories, but that probably does the job just as well.

Without being able to explain how or who, I did speak to someone with firsthand knowledge of the family of the JFK shooter, and after hearing his take on the mother (who was about as anti-JFK that you could think she was the shooter), I'm safely in the "there is no conspiracy" camp.

the clockmaker:
Unfortunately, in the words of the IRA (counter terrorist operators) have to be lucky all the time (terrorists)

Counter-terrorist operators called the IRA?

Given the usual terrorist association of those initials, which muppet thought they'd call their operators that?

Agema:

the clockmaker:
Unfortunately, in the words of the IRA (counter terrorist operators) have to be lucky all the time (terrorists)

Counter-terrorist operators called the IRA?

Given the usual terrorist association of those initials, which muppet thought they'd call their operators that?

I think that quote is supposed to read thus. "to quote the IRA: [counter terrorist operators] have to be lucky all the time, [terrorists] only have to be lucky once." with the original being ""They have to be lucky all the time and we only have to get lucky once."

Agema:

the clockmaker:
Unfortunately, in the words of the IRA (counter terrorist operators) have to be lucky all the time (terrorists)

Counter-terrorist operators called the IRA?

Given the usual terrorist association of those initials, which muppet thought they'd call their operators that?

Yeah sorry mate, I neglected to put in quotation marks. The origonal quote was
'you have to be lucky all the time, we have to be lucky only once' And I swapped out the identities marking that by putting the new words in brackets. Because I am a fucking idiot, I did not put any quotation marks and it looks rather confusing.

Frission:
Yeah, yeah the moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job.

Are conspiracy theories like this commonplace in the States? I know there are several crazies who think the government are out to take them and are thus stockpiling guns, but the paranoia seems to be getting worse and worse.\

Are...Are they not common elsewhere? I figured 'The Government is out to get us!' was a commonly held believe all over the world. No?

The Gentleman:

Tanner The Monotone:

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

Or I'm just throwing a lamb to the wolves because I'm a sadist.
I want people to pick it apart. Me saying that it's crazy right off the bat would only encourage people to agree with me and to not write anything meaningful.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where Glenn Beck is a millionaire and not in a back ward of a well-funded state institution. I do not trust people who just toss things out there and then deny it's what they are thinking, claiming it's only being put out there to be put out there. I assume that, since they put forth the effort, however minimal, to pass garbage along without an explicit and credible denial of purpose, they actually thought it was worthwhile enough to justify potentially having people believe it.

Like I noted before: these things take root very easily, and it's important to get rid of or contain them before they take root.

I'm not even going to comment about containing these sort of things because I have no opinion about it.

Again, I'm going to say that I'm not a conspiracy nut. I don't think I've ever even commented on a single conspiracy thread in the almost 3 years I've been here, so this is the first time I've putting anything to do with conspiracies on this website.

So I'm clarifying; I'm not an Glen Beck copy cat here.

The Gentleman:
My thoughts: If you post any link to a conspiracy theory and do not include "how stupid is this?" or some form of that sentence, you are de facto endorsing the views expressed in that theory. I view it in the same manner of "just asking questions:" you're using a rhetorical device to avoid criticism (or, in some cases, liability) of your own views by disguising them as something someone else said.

None of which affect the right to post them.

I understand the sentiment though, as it's the same I use with religious scriptures and all the ills resulting from them. Only there people generally do actively say they worship the things.

Kopikatsu:

Are...Are they not common elsewhere? I figured 'The Government is out to get us!' was a commonly held believe all over the world. No?

Here in the UK, people instinctively distrust their government, but it's not quite the same. You won't really get crazies pointing the finger of blame at the government for a tragedy or an attack.

People instinctively distrust efforts by the government that can be seen as illiberal (see: police DNA databases, CCTV, and the ID card scheme, all of which were speculated by the tabloids to be efforts by the government to open the door for Big Brother). Buuuut, it's not really conspiracy theory; it's more muted than that.

And, when a tragedy strikes, UK-style paranoiacs are quiet. Even they don't tend to think the gov is against them then.

Tanner The Monotone:
I'm not even going to comment about containing these sort of things because I have no opinion about it.

Again, I'm going to say that I'm not a conspiracy nut. I don't think I've ever even commented on a single conspiracy thread in the almost 3 years I've been here, so this is the first time I've putting anything to do with conspiracies on this website.

So I'm clarifying; I'm not an Glen Beck copy cat here.

And you've shown you're not. But I've seen political discussion boards die because all the threads that survived were about conspiracy theories and the circle of Accusation of conspiracy->Evidence presented to refute->Claims of buying into the story->Same accusations repeat ad infinitum. The worst part about a conspiracy theory has always been the self-sustaining aspect where people can't cite facts "because the facts have been tainted."

And that's why you nip the conspiracy theories in the bud, because eventually people start living in a delusional fantasy world where there's a bogeyman in every shadow and every government bureaucrat becomes a malicious entity.

Imperator_DK:
None of which affect the right to post them.

No, they don't. But I reserve the right to label anyone who tosses that kind of crap into a forum a conspiracy nut at war with reason.

I understand the sentiment though, as it's the same I use with religious scriptures and all the ills resulting from them. Only there people generally do actively say they worship the things.

Yeah, yeah... we all know religion is your bogeyman. You don't need to remind us.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked