Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sjc

Proven Conspiracy Theories

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

OK I'll bite.

The biggest problem with any conspiracy is people.

It's been nearly 20 years yet none of the dozens/hundreds involved have blabbed.

People like you are desperate to find something that isn't there.

Or you're a troll.

Or you're deluded and a simpleton who accepts all that the daily mail tells you.  Have a good life (ps, look after yourself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hearthammer said:

Or you're deluded and a simpleton who accepts all that the daily mail tells you.  Have a good life (ps, look after yourself).

You believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

I'll leave it for others to decide who the simpleton is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

You believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

I'll leave it for others to decide who the simpleton is.

The de facto, scientific evidence is chez moi, mon ami.     Daily Mail is chez vous.      There the defence rests, m'lud.           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

Deary me.

Bringing the Daily Mail into your argument is basically Godwin's Law.

If you're going to troll at least learn to be good at it.

Godwin's off the hook on this one.   It's Bush et al that should be made to do a polygraph.

We will agree to differ.  I might not be alive when the truth is unveiled, but i'll rise from hell to say "i told you so"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree. Iraq was invaded because some idealistic neocons thought they had a once in a lifetime chance after 9/11 to turn the Middle East into a free market paradise of democratic Israeli friendly capitalism, making everyone rich, including them personally and the Arab people. They got the help of Iran to persuade public opinion that it was necessary by using Iranian agents like Ahmed Chalabi to pretend to America that Saddam had WMD. It was a brilliant play by Iran, got their global biggest foe to wipe out their neighbouring biggest foe, and give them effective control over Iraq, while America learnt the costs of military adventures in the Middle East for a generation.
Spot on post. Their ignorance of Iraq and the region was unbelievable.
Saddam was right about the gates of hell.
They went in with small army and no plan for peacekeeping. All for what? A few greedy millionaires.
Sickening.
I'm not saying what was happening in iraq was acceptable but Rumsfeld was more than happy to deal with him while he was playing ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Enigma said:

Japan declared war on the USA.

 

Actually they attacked Pearl Harbor before they formally declared war.  The Americans always regarded it as a sneak attack.

My point is that Roosevelt and others wanted to get into the war but the American public were against it.  The Japanese solved that problem and in such a clumsy way that Roosevelt had no problem declaring war on Germany too.  America benefitted enormously from the war as a major combatant who experienced very little damage on home soil (Pearl Harbor, a couple of unimportant islands in Alaska and some ship sunk in harbor in the first few months - and far fewer wounded and dead then most of the other major combatants).

If any American had predicted Pearl Harbor but kept quiet about it then I doubt history would judge them poorly for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Actually they attacked Pearl Harbor before they formally declared war.  The Americans always regarded it as a sneak attack.

My point is that Roosevelt and others wanted to get into the war but the American public were against it.  The Japanese solved that problem and in such a clumsy way that Roosevelt had no problem declaring war on Germany too.  America benefitted enormously from the war as a major combatant who experienced very little damage on home soil (Pearl Harbor, a couple of unimportant islands in Alaska and some ship sunk in harbor in the first few months - and far fewer wounded and dead then most of the other major combatants).

If any American had predicted Pearl Harbor but kept quiet about it then I doubt history would judge them poorly for it.

You are rehashing the false history of the conspiracy theorists. 

US public opinion had swung definitively behind being involved in the war through 1941.

In 1940 the US reintroduced the draft, a move widely supported, something like 71% approved of it. They had a hugely expensive rearmament that had to be supported by congress as did the diverting of vital supplies from that rearmament to us. The US was defacto entering the war by actively hunting Nazi submarines that entered their self declared "neutrality zone" and had a ship torpedoed and another sunk (the USS Reuben James). 

usww2.thumb.jpg.a174ac2e8df3bc5a5fde41a6311ab12c.jpg

 

https://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf

 

The idea of the US being strongly anti war except for Rooseveldt until Pearl Harbour is a fiction. The US was already on a war footing. The fleet was at Pearl Harbour not its home anchorage in San Diego as a forward deployment to intervene in an expected Japanese invasion of the Philippians. 

As for the US benefiting from the war, that is an anachronism, a view from our time that does not fit into the decisions in 1941. Many expected a renewed post war depression. There was a general expectation the USSR would fall in 1942 and Germany would have vast new resources to add to its war machine. It was a very grim, high risk decision but one people had all but made before Pearl Harbour.

Rewriting the details of US public support and governmental action in 1941 helps create a myth that allowing Pearl Harbour was needed, had they actually known it was coming they could have smashed the carrier fleet there in the same way they did at Midway but with the Japanese invasion of the Philippians as the causus belli they needed, hell the carrier fleet of off Hawaii was all they needed. 

That rewriting plays into the myths of 911, which is why we see the "new Pearl Harbour" bollox being spouted. Its a complete failure to understand where American was by November 1941. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dorlomin said:

You are rehashing the false history of the conspiracy theorists. 

US public opinion had swung definitively behind being involved in the war through 1941.

In 1940 the US reintroduced the draft, a move widely supported, something like 71% approved of it. They had a hugely expensive rearmament that had to be supported by congress as did the diverting of vital supplies from that rearmament to us. The US was defacto entering the war by actively hunting Nazi submarines that entered their self declared "neutrality zone" and had a ship torpedoed and another sunk (the USS Reuben James). 

usww2.thumb.jpg.a174ac2e8df3bc5a5fde41a6311ab12c.jpg

 

https://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf

 

The idea of the US being strongly anti war except for Rooseveldt until Pearl Harbour is a fiction. The US was already on a war footing. The fleet was at Pearl Harbour not its home anchorage in San Diego as a forward deployment to intervene in an expected Japanese invasion of the Philippians

As for the US benefiting from the war, that is an anachronism, a view from our time that does not fit into the decisions in 1941. Many expected a renewed post war depression. There was a general expectation the USSR would fall in 1942 and Germany would have vast new resources to add to its war machine. It was a very grim, high risk decision but one people had all but made before Pearl Harbour.

Rewriting the details of US public support and governmental action in 1941 helps create a myth that allowing Pearl Harbour was needed, had they actually known it was coming they could have smashed the carrier fleet there in the same way they did at Midway but with the Japanese invasion of the Philippians as the causus belli they needed, hell the carrier fleet of off Hawaii was all they needed. 

That rewriting plays into the myths of 911, which is why we see the "new Pearl Harbour" bollox being spouted. Its a complete failure to understand where American was by November 1941. 

St Paul predicted that in a letter, didn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Actually they attacked Pearl Harbor before they formally declared war.  The Americans always regarded it as a sneak attack.

My point is that Roosevelt and others wanted to get into the war but the American public were against it.  The Japanese solved that problem and in such a clumsy way that Roosevelt had no problem declaring war on Germany too.  America benefitted enormously from the war as a major combatant who experienced very little damage on home soil (Pearl Harbor, a couple of unimportant islands in Alaska and some ship sunk in harbor in the first few months - and far fewer wounded and dead then most of the other major combatants).

If any American had predicted Pearl Harbor but kept quiet about it then I doubt history would judge them poorly for it.

Germany declared war on the USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopped reading at "Helping England".

(Except that trend-line smoothing function looks worse than any I've ever seen.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

You are rehashing the false history of the conspiracy theorists. 

US public opinion had swung definitively behind being involved in the war through 1941.

In 1940 the US reintroduced the draft, a move widely supported, something like 71% approved of it. They had a hugely expensive rearmament that had to be supported by congress as did the diverting of vital supplies from that rearmament to us. The US was defacto entering the war by actively hunting Nazi submarines that entered their self declared "neutrality zone" and had a ship torpedoed and another sunk (the USS Reuben James). 

usww2.thumb.jpg.a174ac2e8df3bc5a5fde41a6311ab12c.jpg

 

https://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf

 

The idea of the US being strongly anti war except for Rooseveldt until Pearl Harbour is a fiction. The US was already on a war footing. The fleet was at Pearl Harbour not its home anchorage in San Diego as a forward deployment to intervene in an expected Japanese invasion of the Philippians. 

As for the US benefiting from the war, that is an anachronism, a view from our time that does not fit into the decisions in 1941. Many expected a renewed post war depression. There was a general expectation the USSR would fall in 1942 and Germany would have vast new resources to add to its war machine. It was a very grim, high risk decision but one people had all but made before Pearl Harbour.

Rewriting the details of US public support and governmental action in 1941 helps create a myth that allowing Pearl Harbour was needed, had they actually known it was coming they could have smashed the carrier fleet there in the same way they did at Midway but with the Japanese invasion of the Philippians as the causus belli they needed, hell the carrier fleet of off Hawaii was all they needed. 

That rewriting plays into the myths of 911, which is why we see the "new Pearl Harbour" bollox being spouted. Its a complete failure to understand where American was by November 1941. 

I love it when good old fashioned facts and figures are used against the conspiracy goons with their rumour, innuendo and opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually they attacked Pearl Harbor before they formally declared war.  The Americans always regarded it as a sneak attack.

My point is that Roosevelt and others wanted to get into the war but the American public were against it.  The Japanese solved that problem and in such a clumsy way that Roosevelt had no problem declaring war on Germany too.  America benefitted enormously from the war as a major combatant who experienced very little damage on home soil (Pearl Harbor, a couple of unimportant islands in Alaska and some ship sunk in harbor in the first few months - and far fewer wounded and dead then most of the other major combatants).

If any American had predicted Pearl Harbor but kept quiet about it then I doubt history would judge them poorly for it.

 

I assume Roosevelt had no problem declaring war on Germany because Hitler had made a declaration of war against America earlier in the day. This was a few days after Pearl Harbour, with Hitler citing provocation from a “neutral” country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Germany declared war on the USA

You are right.  I stand corrected.

Edited by Fullerene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Crawford Bridge said:

OK I'll bite.

The biggest problem with any conspiracy is people...

With 9/11 there clearly was a criminal conspiracy involved. The reason the people involved with it are not blabbing at this point is that all the hijackers died on the planes and most of Bin Laden's cronies got bombed into oblivion at Tora Bora.

It's bizarre that people have become so indoctrinated by the official narrative of the JFK assassination  that the notion that conspiracies can and do change the course of history is now treated as being in the domain of wackos. It is mainstream historical fact that the cataclysm of WWI was initiated by an assassination carried out by a secret conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

With 9/11 there clearly was a criminal conspiracy involved. The reason the people involved with it are not blabbing at this point is that all the hijackers died on the planes and most of Bin Laden's cronies got bombed into oblivion at Tora Bora.

It's bizarre that people have become so indoctrinated by the official narrative of the JFK assassination  that the notion that conspiracies can and do change the course of history is now treated as being in the domain of wackos. It is mainstream historical fact that the cataclysm of WWI was initiated by an assassination carried out by a secret conspiracy.

:rolleyes:

point<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>you

Most people are not saying that its wacko to think Al Queda conspired to commit a criminal atrocity. They are saying that they very likely did not have help from invisible demolition crews arranged by the master of complex plans: Dubya Bush.

 

Edited by dorlomin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic of the thread is proven conspiracy theories rather than unproven ones such as those that have been peddled by the so called 9/11 truth movement. As sjc pointed out there have been plenty of active secret conspiracies that have been uncovered over the years. Pointing out that the mainstream narratives on 9/11 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand were the result of conspiracies of that type is therefore on topic.

Edited by LongTimeLurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

:rolleyes:

point<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>you

Most people are not saying that its wacko to think Al Queda conspired to commit a criminal atrocity. They are saying that they very likely did not have help from invisible demolition crews arranged by the master of complex plans: Dubya Bush.

 

I laugh at suggestions that President Bush was somehow behind 9/11 or Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination of Kennedy.  If either of these were true - then that would become all they were known for - their entire legacy.

By comparison, most assassins were unknown before they committed their crime.

I think most conspiracies happen to ensure they happen - i.e. the fewer people know at the time then the most likely it will succeed.  If it gets blown years later, it no longer matters.  IMO, conspiracies that have to remain secret forever are highly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fullerene said:

...Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination of Kennedy...

One thing you can't say about the JFK assassination is that nobody has blabbed about it, so that it has all stayed a huge secret. The problem is that the blabbing points in multiple contradictory directions. Regardless of what really happened it was important for the sake of world peace to make sure that a former defector to the USSR, resident of Minsk and member of "Fair Play for Cuba" was a lone nut acting alone. LBJ did a good job of keeping the lid on and not allowing the war drums to start beating. He also contrary to the Oliver Stone sort of narrative of being a lackey of the military-industrial complex was one of the most successful progressive US presidents in terms of successfully pushing through a left-of-centre agenda right up there with Roosevelt given what he did on Civil Rights and Great Society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hearthammer said:

Perhaps less toking and more attention to discrepancies may assist with judgements and evaluations of the situation.  Only sayin', like.

hearthammer has been promoting 911 troofer talking points.

15 hours ago, Crawford Bridge said:

OK I'll bite.

The biggest problem with any conspiracy is people.

It's been nearly 20 years yet none of the dozens/hundreds involved have blabbed.

People like you are desperate to find something that isn't there.

Or you're a troll.

Crawford Bridge points out its unlikely such a complex conspiracy would have remained secret. 

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

With 9/11 there clearly was a criminal conspiracy involved. The reason the people involved with it are not blabbing at this point is that all the hijackers died on the planes and most of Bin Laden's cronies got bombed into oblivion at Tora Bora.

It's bizarre that people have become so indoctrinated by the official narrative of the JFK assassination  that the notion that conspiracies can and do change the course of history is now treated as being in the domain of wackos. It is mainstream historical fact that the cataclysm of WWI was initiated by an assassination carried out by a secret conspiracy.

LongTimeLurker quotes from this exchange and starts tilting at windmills about how people cannot accept that Al Queda's plan was a real conspiracy. A complete irrelevance to the point the previous posters was making. 

Quote

The topic of the thread is proven conspiracy theories rather than unproven ones such as those that have been peddled by the so called 9/11 truth movement.

And completely ignoring that since page 1 SJC, hearthammer and a couple of others have been pushing variations of 911 trooferism (and they jumped into an exchange on just that).

:rolleyes:internet gonna internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...