Russia Today (RT): Conspiracy theories arise from underpants bomber story
-
Every event in history IS a conspiracy. It's not about me believing it. It's a fact. Some few or many people come up with a plan, and depending on how much power these people have, they try to gain support or not for this plan. Revolutions are also conspiracies. Since revolutions usually start with normal citizens and don't have much power, they need to gain support from other like-minded individuals. The same can be said for bankers. They have enough power for themselves because of the money they have, so they don't need a lot of political power to just buy a politician. It really is this simple. It has to do with the mind. Yes, these ideas are bred randomly in different people, but they need support for whatever cause they have. Hence: conspiracy.
Well, that's an interesting theory, and i can see that it's a valid word game. I don't see how it changes what I wrote tho.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Wow - you wrote this yourself. I am impressed that you took the time to have a coherent thought of your own. I'm not saying I believe it, but at least you're discussing something. Fear has always been used by the US media to control people, it's nothing new.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Fear has always been used by the US media to control people, it's nothing new.
Oh is that right? I had no idea :rolleyes:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
ROTFL !!! Yes, I guess that some religions, the ones without any proof, operate on a similar theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I guess that some religions, the ones without any proof, operate on a similar theory.
Climate Cultists operate on that theory.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I guess that some religions, the ones without any proof, operate on a similar theory.
Climate Cultists operate on that theory.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Your media operates on that theory. So what ? What does that prove ? The people who warn you that a hurricane is coming, or that it's bushfire season, operate on the same theory. Because that's how your media works. Does that prove they are all lying ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
My first night in the USA, I was in Seattle and I turned on the TV. It was CNN, and the show was a woman claiming that someone the police had not arrested, had obviously kidnapped some girl, and was molesting children as we spoke. I remember sitting there with my jaw on the ground, astounded that this show was legal, and that the climate of fear it promoted, passed as a news show.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yeah it's absolutely ridiculous. My mother is always in fear now, mostly because she watches the news every single day when she gets up and when she has dinner. It's just stupid. My father reads the newspaper, and that's not much better. I've finished doing such things, and I've created my own "news" lol I figure, I have to be a little better, if only entertaining, and possibly good for a laugh. I don't care how I'm perceived, but I know I won't watch such trash as CNN, as you've pointed out.
-
Well, that's an interesting theory, and i can see that it's a valid word game. I don't see how it changes what I wrote tho.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how it changes what I wrote tho.
Let's get one thing straight: I'm not trying to change what you wrote. I hope to clarify what you wrote, though. You have to understand that a "conspiracy theory" is the potential idea that people are trying to change the course of history. A conspiracy is the very idea that people are collaborating to bring about change.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's an interesting theory, and i can see that it's a valid word game.
All you're trying to do here is write me off. If you're unresponsive and won't open your mind to the idea that things are hitting the fan, just say so. It's ok. I won't put you down. It's not a word game. It's fact. Look up the definition of conspiracy. Read history. It's right in front of your face and you're not open to seeing it, a very simple idea.
-
ROTFL !!! Yes, I guess that some religions, the ones without any proof, operate on a similar theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the ones without any proof
Ahem. Not to open Pandora's Box , but it seems to me that the defining element of ANY religion is it's reliance on the faith of it's adherents. Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary. Anyone claiming 'proof' of their religion's validity should be prepared to back it up prove their claim in a non-religious setting. And as I recall, certain religions have had a rough time in court when even trying to qualify as a religion, as opposed to a cult.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the ones without any proof
Ahem. Not to open Pandora's Box , but it seems to me that the defining element of ANY religion is it's reliance on the faith of it's adherents. Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary. Anyone claiming 'proof' of their religion's validity should be prepared to back it up prove their claim in a non-religious setting. And as I recall, certain religions have had a rough time in court when even trying to qualify as a religion, as opposed to a cult.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary.
Amusingly, the bible says the opposite.
LunaticFringe wrote:
And as I recall, certain religions have had a rough time in court when even trying to qualify as a religion, as opposed to a cult.
Probably. But that's a human definition. It matters only in stopping groups that control and harm people.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Anyone claiming 'proof' of their religion's validity should be prepared to back it up prove their claim in a non-religious setting.
How can God prove Himself in a non religious way ? Why does His refusal to offer the proof that we may define, prove that He offers no proof at all ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yeah it's absolutely ridiculous. My mother is always in fear now, mostly because she watches the news every single day when she gets up and when she has dinner. It's just stupid. My father reads the newspaper, and that's not much better. I've finished doing such things, and I've created my own "news" lol I figure, I have to be a little better, if only entertaining, and possibly good for a laugh. I don't care how I'm perceived, but I know I won't watch such trash as CNN, as you've pointed out.
Yeah, my mother is the same. I think that some people feel better in some perverse way to feel that someone is out to get them. Which brings us back to conspiracy theories.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how it changes what I wrote tho.
Let's get one thing straight: I'm not trying to change what you wrote. I hope to clarify what you wrote, though. You have to understand that a "conspiracy theory" is the potential idea that people are trying to change the course of history. A conspiracy is the very idea that people are collaborating to bring about change.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's an interesting theory, and i can see that it's a valid word game.
All you're trying to do here is write me off. If you're unresponsive and won't open your mind to the idea that things are hitting the fan, just say so. It's ok. I won't put you down. It's not a word game. It's fact. Look up the definition of conspiracy. Read history. It's right in front of your face and you're not open to seeing it, a very simple idea.
CP lost my response, it seems. My response was that I was trying to understand the reason for your posting what you did. I mean, it's a valid statement, in it's own way, but it didn't really address what I was saying, I thought. I was just trying to figure out how it fit in.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary.
Amusingly, the bible says the opposite.
LunaticFringe wrote:
And as I recall, certain religions have had a rough time in court when even trying to qualify as a religion, as opposed to a cult.
Probably. But that's a human definition. It matters only in stopping groups that control and harm people.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Anyone claiming 'proof' of their religion's validity should be prepared to back it up prove their claim in a non-religious setting.
How can God prove Himself in a non religious way ? Why does His refusal to offer the proof that we may define, prove that He offers no proof at all ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
LunaticFringe wrote: Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary. Amusingly, the bible says the opposite.
Really? How so?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can God prove Himself in a non religious way ? Why does His refusal to offer the proof that we may define, prove that He offers no proof at all ?
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
This was your original, I believe. At least, this is what I originally responded to. So I have to assume it's "people who are fearful of how random life is and would rather believe that someone is in control". This is precisely why a government is created in the first place! And you believe in the government, and that it should have some form of control on situations. So you DO believe in conspiracies! I'm not trying to move your words around at all, but look at these things from all aspects. You would rather believe that governments actually can control any and all situations, nevermind who is in charge of that actual organization in the first place. And that's precisely where the fallacy lies. It's not a question of whether someone is using it for evil. It's the very fact that an organization has a monopoly on a certain thing (or more) in the first place. Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought. It does have a random element to it. Good people or evil people could come to power of any organization, no matter how well structured. And if people let their guard down for too long... they're screwed. Meaning, we are screwed, right now.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
LunaticFringe wrote: Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary. Amusingly, the bible says the opposite.
Really? How so?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can God prove Himself in a non religious way ? Why does His refusal to offer the proof that we may define, prove that He offers no proof at all ?
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Really? How so?
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
This was your original, I believe. At least, this is what I originally responded to. So I have to assume it's "people who are fearful of how random life is and would rather believe that someone is in control". This is precisely why a government is created in the first place! And you believe in the government, and that it should have some form of control on situations. So you DO believe in conspiracies! I'm not trying to move your words around at all, but look at these things from all aspects. You would rather believe that governments actually can control any and all situations, nevermind who is in charge of that actual organization in the first place. And that's precisely where the fallacy lies. It's not a question of whether someone is using it for evil. It's the very fact that an organization has a monopoly on a certain thing (or more) in the first place. Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought. It does have a random element to it. Good people or evil people could come to power of any organization, no matter how well structured. And if people let their guard down for too long... they're screwed. Meaning, we are screwed, right now.
josda1000 wrote:
So you DO believe in conspiracies!
ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
josda1000 wrote:
Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought.
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Really? How so?
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Christian Graus wrote:
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this. I've always reasoned that if god did exist, trying to apply any kind of ethical or logical framework to it's actions would be an exercise in futility; I mean, a god by definition would be beyond our ken, our understanding, right? So those principles wouldn't apply. Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Christian Graus wrote:
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Christian Graus wrote:
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this. I've always reasoned that if god did exist, trying to apply any kind of ethical or logical framework to it's actions would be an exercise in futility; I mean, a god by definition would be beyond our ken, our understanding, right? So those principles wouldn't apply. Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Well, it's external evidence. Read Acts 8, down to about verse 19. None of that makes any sense if there is not external evidence. Acts 2, 10 and 19 all record the same external evidence when someone becomes a Christian. However, the point is not to get recognised by courts, and I did not claim that was possible.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
Sure - I am glad you at least agree that people who say 'if there was a God, He would do XXX' are mistaken in their thoughts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
So you DO believe in conspiracies!
ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
josda1000 wrote:
Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought.
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: So you DO believe in conspiracies! ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
I should have put a smiley at the end there, it was a half-joke lol ah well, the deed has been done.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
It happens for the very thing you said earlier: the random element. Humans are imperfect. We are subject to good and evil ourselves. Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here. But the point is, once you're in office, you feel empowered, because you ARE empowered. As for the USA's case, Powers are delegated to the Congress, and then they go and delegate Powers to the President. More and more power is given to that branch, and especially that one man. This is where it goes wrong. Yes, there have been checks and balances put in place, but many times these things are not executed. For example, Congress now doesn't declare war, they just leave it to the President. Congress doesn't create and coin the money, a bank does. Plus, more power has been taken away from the states. Many things are just going wrong. Power corrupts. That's just the way human nature is. I'm not saying it has to happen; it's just that it always has. And to say that it's just going to stop at the drop of a hat is naive. That's what I'm trying to point out. The failsafe you mention WAS the Constitution. But to say that it's a living document destroys the purpose. Yes, you can amend the Constitution, of course. But that's the extent of it. And you know the answer to your last question. The alternative is anarchy; but that would never work. IMO, republics are the best form of government; and theoretically we still have that form here in the United States. But the only way to keep a republic is with knowledge, not naivety and ignorance. I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: So you DO believe in conspiracies! ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
I should have put a smiley at the end there, it was a half-joke lol ah well, the deed has been done.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
It happens for the very thing you said earlier: the random element. Humans are imperfect. We are subject to good and evil ourselves. Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here. But the point is, once you're in office, you feel empowered, because you ARE empowered. As for the USA's case, Powers are delegated to the Congress, and then they go and delegate Powers to the President. More and more power is given to that branch, and especially that one man. This is where it goes wrong. Yes, there have been checks and balances put in place, but many times these things are not executed. For example, Congress now doesn't declare war, they just leave it to the President. Congress doesn't create and coin the money, a bank does. Plus, more power has been taken away from the states. Many things are just going wrong. Power corrupts. That's just the way human nature is. I'm not saying it has to happen; it's just that it always has. And to say that it's just going to stop at the drop of a hat is naive. That's what I'm trying to point out. The failsafe you mention WAS the Constitution. But to say that it's a living document destroys the purpose. Yes, you can amend the Constitution, of course. But that's the extent of it. And you know the answer to your last question. The alternative is anarchy; but that would never work. IMO, republics are the best form of government; and theoretically we still have that form here in the United States. But the only way to keep a republic is with knowledge, not naivety and ignorance. I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
josda1000 wrote:
Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here.
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
I'd say that whatever happens, humans are imperfect, and there will never be a world where there is no reason to complain about those in power, to some degree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here.
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
I'd say that whatever happens, humans are imperfect, and there will never be a world where there is no reason to complain about those in power, to some degree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
For the most part, yes. The US is in debt, and we don't hear about it nearly as much as we should in US mainstream news. But I also don't just assume it. I research well enough. I have to for what I do.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
For the most part, yes. The US is in debt, and we don't hear about it nearly as much as we should in US mainstream news. But I also don't just assume it. I research well enough. I have to for what I do.
Well, what strikes me is that the US is supposed to be at war, but nowadays, that's not meant to impact on people at home. Life is meant to go on, no matter what. And it's bound to all come crashing down. It would not surprise me if the Xmas bomb guy was being watched to try to catch people higher up in his chain of command, or whatever. IF the video alleges that they wanted him to succeed, or he was set up by the US government, I don't buy that for a second. I admit to not having watched the whole thing, I just got the gist.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.