Russia Today (RT): Conspiracy theories arise from underpants bomber story
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA[^] I understand that some can't see this RT piece, so a summation, from the video descrip: "There are more questions and conspiracy theories about the underwear bomber arising. Webster Tarpley says that Mutalab was a patsy and wasnt taken off the flight because the government was trying to get more information from him later on. There was an objection from one government agency however, Tarpley also says that government agencies did not talk with each other about this and the government knew that he was going to plant a bomb."
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA[^] I understand that some can't see this RT piece, so a summation, from the video descrip: "There are more questions and conspiracy theories about the underwear bomber arising. Webster Tarpley says that Mutalab was a patsy and wasnt taken off the flight because the government was trying to get more information from him later on. There was an objection from one government agency however, Tarpley also says that government agencies did not talk with each other about this and the government knew that he was going to plant a bomb."
This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because . People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people. A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too.
-
This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because . People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people. A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too.
wolfbinary wrote:
This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because .
You left this pretty open-ended... can you continue and elaborate?
wolfbinary wrote:
People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people.
This is a contradiction... can you explain this as well?
wolfbinary wrote:
A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too.
Agreed, but how does this apply to our situation? Let's say that the government wasn't behind the whole thing. How would it not be in the government's best interest to protect us and prevent it from happening? I don't think I follow your logic, you're leaving this whole thing very open-ended really.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA[^] I understand that some can't see this RT piece, so a summation, from the video descrip: "There are more questions and conspiracy theories about the underwear bomber arising. Webster Tarpley says that Mutalab was a patsy and wasnt taken off the flight because the government was trying to get more information from him later on. There was an objection from one government agency however, Tarpley also says that government agencies did not talk with each other about this and the government knew that he was going to plant a bomb."
He was let on the plane WITHOUT a passport. Eyewitness reports say he was accompanied by a guy in a business suit, and a guy was video taping him the entire flight. The reaction from this is widespread expansion of the use of full body scanners. Micheal Chirdoff (former head of homeland security) has investments in the industry which indicates he knew the government would be purchasing tons of the units in the future. Also they are going into Yemen. This type of (police-state security/military/fear-mongering/unpopular legislation) expansion is continue and accelerate by using fear. Question is who is really the threat? It is our own government tyrannically abusing Americans the selectively other nations.
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)[^]
-
wolfbinary wrote:
This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because .
You left this pretty open-ended... can you continue and elaborate?
wolfbinary wrote:
People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people.
This is a contradiction... can you explain this as well?
wolfbinary wrote:
A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too.
Agreed, but how does this apply to our situation? Let's say that the government wasn't behind the whole thing. How would it not be in the government's best interest to protect us and prevent it from happening? I don't think I follow your logic, you're leaving this whole thing very open-ended really.
josda1000 wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because . You left this pretty open-ended... can you continue and elaborate? wolfbinary wrote: People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people. This is a contradiction... can you explain this as well? wolfbinary wrote: A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too. Agreed, but how does this apply to our situation? Let's say that the government wasn't behind the whole thing. How would it not be in the government's best interest to protect us and prevent it from happening? I don't think I follow your logic, you're leaving this whole thing very open-ended really.
Fair enough. I don't recall from where exactly I'd heard about Pearl Harbor or I'd site it now. Some people have made arguments, based on I don't know what, that this had occurred. The contradiction I made about the government messing things up and for protecting people was the illustration I was trying to make. Does any government agency work perfectly no, but it does have an effect on the likelihood of something bad happening. Airport security is a perfect example of this. We have metal detectors, but real knives still can get through. It gives people a false sense of safety. The problem I have with thinking that the government is this living breathing person that people describe is, that it isn't. It isn't in the same way that company's aren't people. Governments are filled with people, like you and me, that serve there own self interests and when time permits the country as a whole. This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives. It's why I find it funny, not haha, that when people talk about government they only talk about the elected officials and not their own lack of participation or party lines or anything else. Most of the country doesn't vote and civil service is vilified in people's minds. You hear it all the time "That's government workers for you".
-
josda1000 wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: This sounds like a replay of the theories about Pearl Harbor to the degree that the government knew but didn't act because . You left this pretty open-ended... can you continue and elaborate? wolfbinary wrote: People give the government too much credit for messing things up and for protecting people. This is a contradiction... can you explain this as well? wolfbinary wrote: A lot of self-interested people simply don't do things because it would be bad for them too. Agreed, but how does this apply to our situation? Let's say that the government wasn't behind the whole thing. How would it not be in the government's best interest to protect us and prevent it from happening? I don't think I follow your logic, you're leaving this whole thing very open-ended really.
Fair enough. I don't recall from where exactly I'd heard about Pearl Harbor or I'd site it now. Some people have made arguments, based on I don't know what, that this had occurred. The contradiction I made about the government messing things up and for protecting people was the illustration I was trying to make. Does any government agency work perfectly no, but it does have an effect on the likelihood of something bad happening. Airport security is a perfect example of this. We have metal detectors, but real knives still can get through. It gives people a false sense of safety. The problem I have with thinking that the government is this living breathing person that people describe is, that it isn't. It isn't in the same way that company's aren't people. Governments are filled with people, like you and me, that serve there own self interests and when time permits the country as a whole. This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives. It's why I find it funny, not haha, that when people talk about government they only talk about the elected officials and not their own lack of participation or party lines or anything else. Most of the country doesn't vote and civil service is vilified in people's minds. You hear it all the time "That's government workers for you".
wolfbinary wrote:
The contradiction I made about the government messing things up and for protecting people was the illustration I was trying to make. Does any government agency work perfectly no, but it does have an effect on the likelihood of something bad happening. Airport security is a perfect example of this. We have metal detectors, but real knives still can get through. It gives people a false sense of safety.
I completely agree with this statement. Things get through the holes, theives and rogues always do what they want to do no matter what the laws are and whatever the public policy to protect against it. Dead on.
wolfbinary wrote:
The problem I have with thinking that the government is this living breathing person that people describe is, that it isn't. It isn't in the same way that company's aren't people.
They may not be people; and they should not be described as "person"s. But the fact is, that they tend to take on a life of their own. Any human institution tends to become an embodiment ("The body of the people", "The body of Congress", "Student body", etc). So in the same way that corporations are "things" that should be allowed to "speak", the government is a human entity and should be treated as such insofar as to speak out against it and blame it for things. Notice it always tends to seek power.
wolfbinary wrote:
Governments are filled with people, like you and me, that serve there own self interests and when time permits the country as a whole. This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives.
For the very fact that you said, government is corrupt. Since people serve their own interests (in general), the government becomes corrupted and doesn't serve the people anymore (in general). Cause/effect.
wolfbinary wrote:
This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives.
Agreed that this is just a perception. But how much of it is truly perception? Cameras in every building, NSA and FBI looking at the web and now trying to either shut it down or regulate it, the list goes on. It definitely seems that way, but you're right; you don't really know if they're doing anything with the info or not. So, I say, just stop the "security" altogether.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
The contradiction I made about the government messing things up and for protecting people was the illustration I was trying to make. Does any government agency work perfectly no, but it does have an effect on the likelihood of something bad happening. Airport security is a perfect example of this. We have metal detectors, but real knives still can get through. It gives people a false sense of safety.
I completely agree with this statement. Things get through the holes, theives and rogues always do what they want to do no matter what the laws are and whatever the public policy to protect against it. Dead on.
wolfbinary wrote:
The problem I have with thinking that the government is this living breathing person that people describe is, that it isn't. It isn't in the same way that company's aren't people.
They may not be people; and they should not be described as "person"s. But the fact is, that they tend to take on a life of their own. Any human institution tends to become an embodiment ("The body of the people", "The body of Congress", "Student body", etc). So in the same way that corporations are "things" that should be allowed to "speak", the government is a human entity and should be treated as such insofar as to speak out against it and blame it for things. Notice it always tends to seek power.
wolfbinary wrote:
Governments are filled with people, like you and me, that serve there own self interests and when time permits the country as a whole. This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives.
For the very fact that you said, government is corrupt. Since people serve their own interests (in general), the government becomes corrupted and doesn't serve the people anymore (in general). Cause/effect.
wolfbinary wrote:
This creates the perception of evil or a big bad government interfering and destroying people's lives.
Agreed that this is just a perception. But how much of it is truly perception? Cameras in every building, NSA and FBI looking at the web and now trying to either shut it down or regulate it, the list goes on. It definitely seems that way, but you're right; you don't really know if they're doing anything with the info or not. So, I say, just stop the "security" altogether.
josda1000 wrote:
So in the same way that corporations are "things" that should be allowed to "speak", the government is a human entity and should be treated as such insofar as to speak out against it and blame it for things.
Do companies have rights like persons have?
-
josda1000 wrote:
So in the same way that corporations are "things" that should be allowed to "speak", the government is a human entity and should be treated as such insofar as to speak out against it and blame it for things.
Do companies have rights like persons have?
-
According to the supreme court decision only a couple of weeks ago, yes, they do. unfortunately. i don't agree with it at all though, of course.
-
Well here's another thing: if a corporation has the right to speak, then the government can speak for itself (somehow). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html[^] (15) "United States" means a. A Federal corporation Look this one up and see for yourself. Either way though, even getting off the subject of corporations and such, it's just human nature for people to do what they want to gain power and keep that power, even subconciously. Look at Thomas Jefferson. He was adamant to keep the government small and to keep few powers. When he was in office, he repealed taxes, pardoned people held under the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc. But he also had the Embargo Act, excluded blacks from carrying mail, and tried to ignore a subpoena just because he was President. His acts are powers granted to him by the Constitution. The Constitution made a new entity, which ultimately makes a new breathing being just because the people that make up that government usually just "go with the flow". It isn't a person, no. But anyone that gets near to power abuses said power. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Anyway, it seems that we're in agreement on principle here anyway, just wanted to feed some food for thought.
-
Well here's another thing: if a corporation has the right to speak, then the government can speak for itself (somehow). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html[^] (15) "United States" means a. A Federal corporation Look this one up and see for yourself. Either way though, even getting off the subject of corporations and such, it's just human nature for people to do what they want to gain power and keep that power, even subconciously. Look at Thomas Jefferson. He was adamant to keep the government small and to keep few powers. When he was in office, he repealed taxes, pardoned people held under the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc. But he also had the Embargo Act, excluded blacks from carrying mail, and tried to ignore a subpoena just because he was President. His acts are powers granted to him by the Constitution. The Constitution made a new entity, which ultimately makes a new breathing being just because the people that make up that government usually just "go with the flow". It isn't a person, no. But anyone that gets near to power abuses said power. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Anyway, it seems that we're in agreement on principle here anyway, just wanted to feed some food for thought.
Hmmm me hungry for food for thought ;P
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA[^] I understand that some can't see this RT piece, so a summation, from the video descrip: "There are more questions and conspiracy theories about the underwear bomber arising. Webster Tarpley says that Mutalab was a patsy and wasnt taken off the flight because the government was trying to get more information from him later on. There was an objection from one government agency however, Tarpley also says that government agencies did not talk with each other about this and the government knew that he was going to plant a bomb."
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.
-
He was let on the plane WITHOUT a passport. Eyewitness reports say he was accompanied by a guy in a business suit, and a guy was video taping him the entire flight. The reaction from this is widespread expansion of the use of full body scanners. Micheal Chirdoff (former head of homeland security) has investments in the industry which indicates he knew the government would be purchasing tons of the units in the future. Also they are going into Yemen. This type of (police-state security/military/fear-mongering/unpopular legislation) expansion is continue and accelerate by using fear. Question is who is really the threat? It is our own government tyrannically abusing Americans the selectively other nations.
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)[^]
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.
-
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.
Kind of like religion. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, keep the American public in panic, while keeping the truth in foreign media. Notice that this was found in Russia Today. Meaning, not in America. Glad you're keeping track.
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.
-
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.
It is amazing how mentally castrated CG is, simple common sense seems to have escaped him.
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:
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.
Kind of like religion. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
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.
-
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.