Former conspiracy believer here

[bonkey]

Also, read some military history. You'll find many examples of militaries being caught wholly unprepared for new ways of waging a conflict.

The Maginot Line would be a good example here, methinks....

 

[gumboot]

The Maginot Line would be a good example here, methinks....

From the allies' point of view the entire first half of World War Two would be an excellent example.

-Gumboot

 

[Architect]

Franco-Prussian War.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Incas and Aztecs.

(with a wink and a nod to Prof. Diamond)

 

[Belz...]

The bottom line is that someone somewhere is responsible for either giving the wrong orders or setting up a system that didn't protect a single target. And to the best of my knowledge, that person has not been held accountable.

Oh, so you're one of those types who always needs someone to hang whenever something goes wrong ?

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

...

I understand. One of the things that sticks in my mind is the "wall" that was created by Jamie Gorelick (Who shouldn't have been on the 9/11 commission to begin with, she should have been questioned by it! But at least she eventually recused herself.) that disallowed foreign and domestic intelligence agencies from sharing information. There are a lot of career politicians who were involved in this who can take some blame. (Not for causing it or letting it happen, but of being incompetent.)

Then there are the FBI field agents who reported that there were foreign students of Arabic backgrounds acting strange at flight schools, wishing to learn how to steer and navigate, but not caring how to take off or land.

I recall reports stating that the managers of these field agents didn't think it was important to send the information up the "chain of command" to see if there was anything fishy about this. Bad policy? Most likely. Bad judgment? Most definitely. I'm not saying their criminally liable or "In On It™" or LIHOPers... Just incompetent.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I respect the opinions of people here (aside from the truthers) and will admit my mistakes. (unlike truthers)

 

[Gamolon]

And again, I never called you a liar. I questioned the sincerity of your OP.

What?! Look up the definition of sincerity. Here, I'll do it for you. "The quality of being open and TRUTHFUL; Not DECEITFUL or hypocritical."

I'm sticking to my original theory that you were never a "conspiracy believer" as you call it...

(Bolding mine)

He says he was, you say he wasn't. To everyone on planet earth, that's calling someone a liar.

Saying something that people can quote and then saying that you never said it? Now that's what I call a lie.

 

[RedIbis]

What?! Look up the definition of sincerity. Here, I'll do it for you. "The quality of being open and TRUTHFUL; Not DECEITFUL or hypocritical."



(Bolding mine)

He says he was, you say he wasn't. To everyone on planet earth, that's calling someone a liar.

Saying something that people can quote and then saying that you never said it? Now that's what I call a lie.

I never used the words "lie," "lying," or "liar." Those are words you guys like to throw around.

I was questioning the OP. How would you like a debate and discourse to ensue in which I question the motives and sincerity of a post?

It's my suspicion that the posters here are overreacting to an inconsequential point to distract from the possibility that I might be right.

 

[8den]

It's my suspicion that the posters here are overreacting to an inconsequential point to distract from the possibility that I might be right.

Nahhh it's more you're disputing the honesty of the OP, which is more commonly known as accusing the OP of lying.

So RedIbis yes or no answer please, do you think the OP is honest and truthful?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Red, I personally think that you called Diagoras a liar. Now I know you didn't use the word liar, but that is hardly the point. If you tell me that you have always been faithful to your SO, and I say in a sarcastic manner "Oh, sure you were! You sir are an oak, at least that what Jenny tells me!" Did I not just call you a liar, without using the word liar? Even if I said that to a friend, I wouldn't be shocked if I got punched for that comment.

 

[Gamolon]

I never used the words "lie," "lying," or "liar." Those are words you guys like to throw around.

I was questioning the OP. How would you like a debate and discourse to ensue in which I question the motives and sincerity of a post?

It's my suspicion that the posters here are overreacting to an inconsequential point to distract from the possibility that I might be right.

Round and round Red goes, where Red stops, nobody knows. I think your name should be Merry-Go-Round.

 

[Nick227]

I think there are probably some corrupt people and governments that have used these organisations over the years for their own ends to the detriment of the people the IMF and WB were intended to serve, but that's what some people will always do (or at least try).
To say that all that equals a NWO hellbent on an evil agenda of a One World Government destined to enslave us all seems a bit, well, kooky in my book.

Hi Brainache,

Just to make it clear, I don't think that globalisation is necessarily a bad thing at all, personally. What concerns me is the means being used to achieve it, and the motivation of those undertaking it.

I've heard the "few corrupt people" argument a lot from people. I haven't met one who's actually really looked at the bigger picture, personally. If you consider the spread of American culture as a global phenomenon, and look at how it's being achieved, it's clear that a big chunk is happening covertly. I don't recally any US presidents getting up and saying "we're gonna take over the world." But it's happening. And it's happening, not just through softer cultural imperialism of the McD type, but also through ruthless and systematic exploitation of many smaller countries by the WB and IMF, frequently with horrific human cost. It's coordinated, and it's a covert agenda. Personally I have no doubt. And I've not seen anyone on this forum try and demonstrate otherwise, not that I'm saying they should. I also cannot prove it other than to offer links to circumstantial evidence.

It concerns me, and it increasingly concerns a lot of other people worldwide, which is why in my opinion so many people are taking to CTs these days. 1 million people a month watch movies like Zeitgeist on Google alone. It's becoming bigger and bigger business. People are attracted now to new versions of history being presented. They're ready for it.

Something that affected me a lot back in the late 90s was researching the anti-addiction medication ibogaine. People in the US were moving this amazing drug, capable of arresting heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, or alcohol addiction in its tracks, towards the mass market. It went to Phase 1 FDA testing. In the early 90s, NIDA (the US National Institute of Drug Addiction) dropped the drug flat. Their reason - it was only shown to keep people off heroin for 3 months at a time. Then they'd need a re-dose. No one could believe their ears! A drug that put addiction into total remission for 3 months, with no known side effects, and it wouldn't be developed by NIDA, whilst they kept banging away with the same old crappy medications that everyone knew didn't work or made things worse! When I dug deeper I found out a lot about the pharm business and government. It's so immoral it's horrific. People are just kept on meds, licit or otherwise. And it extends deeper back down the line than just government.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

First question you should ask yourself: what is the basis for this assumption of yours?

For forty years, U.S. airspace defence was predicated upon the idea of stopping aircraft outside of U.S. airspace from penetrating into it. Primarily, shooting down Soviet bombers during WWIII. That was the main mission.

Large organizations do not change directions easily. There's a huge amount of bureaucratic inertia which keeps things moving in the same direction they had been moving already. Also, read some military history. You'll find many examples of militaries being caught wholly unprepared for new ways of waging a conflict.

Hi Corsair,

Good points. I will revise my opinion of the 911 attacks to reflect that for an Arab based terrorist org it wouldn't necessarily be exceptionally complex task. I still don't really buy that they orchestrated it, as the what happened in its wake, in the context of what myself and other CTist believe preceded it, is just too pat. Afghanistan, Iraq, new Western hate figures, social control, and weapons sales - it's too pat for me. I was never very good at believing in coincidences.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

I never used the words "lie," "lying," or "liar." Those are words you guys like to throw around.

So if I call you a long-nosed, wide-eared pachyderm, I'm not calling you an elephant ?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I never used the words "lie," "lying," or "liar." Those are words you guys like to throw around.

I was questioning the OP. How would you like a debate and discourse to ensue in which I question the motives and sincerity of a post?

It's my suspicion that the posters here are overreacting to an inconsequential point to distract from the possibility that I might be right.

Question for you. Are you utterly unfamiliar with how message boards work or do you think we're all stupid? In case you've conveniently forgotten, here is your post back on the first page.

This is an obvious work. The reasons are too many to list.

[qimg]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/hooklinesinker.jpg[/qimg]

You weren't "questioning" the OP. You stated it was "obviously" a BS post and offered up your cute little image to reinforce it being BS. You have, in the intervening pages, not offered up a single point of evidence showing the OP to be BS, ignored posts by Diagoras explaining his journey further, ignored numerous notations by others and Diagoras himself of that post and done little more than whine about how you're being persecuted for "just asking a question" - which, based upon the emphatic content of your first post to this thread - you obviously were not.

Since I'm not a regular participant in CT I hate to use the "old school" gambit on you, but I've seen this sort of b******* copout waaaay to often on here to let them go unchallenged. Your response to the OP was to call him a liar. You now are claiming, despite the evidence that you did, that you weren't calling him a liar, you were just "questioning" him. And you've ignored subsequent evidence and bitched about how the audience doesn't accept your BS claims.

Sorry if your cries of persecution for on my deaf ears.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's coordinated, and it's a covert agenda. Personally I have no doubt.

Yes, but do you have evidence?

And I've not seen anyone on this forum try and demonstrate otherwise, not that I'm saying they should. I also cannot prove it other than to offer links to circumstantial evidence.

No evidence, and yet, no doubt. Not a healthy combination there.

It concerns me, and it increasingly concerns a lot of other people worldwide, which is why in my opinion so many people are taking to CTs these days. 1 million people a month watch movies like Zeitgeist on Google alone. It's becoming bigger and bigger business. People are attracted now to new versions of history being presented. They're ready for it.

Where do you get this idea that conspiracy theories are new? Google Video is new, I'll grant you that.

When I dug deeper I found out a lot about the pharm business and government. It's so immoral it's horrific. People are just kept on meds, licit or otherwise. And it extends deeper back down the line than just government.

Deeper back down the line that just government? You mean... people are doing this?!

 

[1337m4n]

I never used the words "lie," "lying," or "liar." Those are words you guys like to throw around.

What are you not understanding?

You accused the OP of fabricating his story. That is exactly the same thing as calling him a liar. It is not necessary to use the exact word "liar".

Watch this: "RedIbis is a few cards short of a deck, methinks."

Now, let me ask you this: Did I just call you stupid?

I was questioning the OP.

Please quote where you asked a question, because I couldn't find one.

It's my suspicion that the posters here are overreacting to an inconsequential point to distract from the possibility that I might be right.

Right about what?

 

[PixyMisa]

Good points. I will revise my opinion of the 911 attacks to reflect that for an Arab based terrorist org it wouldn't necessarily be exceptionally complex task. I still don't really buy that they orchestrated it, as the what happened in its wake, in the context of what myself and other CTist believe preceded it, is just too pat. Afghanistan, Iraq, new Western hate figures, social control, and weapons sales - it's too pat for me. I was never very good at believing in coincidences.

What part of it is "pat"? And to what coincidences do you refer?

If you are talking about security measures taken by governments during wartime, it is hardly a coincidence that measures taken during previous wars are reflected in part in a new war. We don't seem to have quite as many internment camps this time around, though.

 

[DavidJames]

Round and round Red goes, where Red stops, nobody knows. I think your name should be Merry-Go-Round.

Red (like Deep44 ( in another thread) are playing word games. He's a troll, only here to try and win points in some disingenuous CT style game.

 

[Nick227]

Evidence?

Hi PM,

We had some discussion of this over on the JREF Zeitgeist thread, beginning around [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3025982#post3025982 here]. It may have started before but my case was basically this...

Hi GreNME,

What I said, if I recall correctly, was that there are significant cases where the pattern of activity in mass media reporting clearly resembles that of a body under centralised control. This includes -

- jumping en masse, overnight, on one particular event and asserting conclusions as to what caused it without even waiting for proper judicial procedures to be followed

- refusing en masse to cover significant events

- taking a unified stance on one political issue, where previously there appeared to be a broad range of stances taken by different media orgs

I don't watch so much TV these days so the cases I cited to substantiate these points were a little old. For the first - the Leah Betts ecstasy incident in the UK. For the second, things like Pino Arlacchi's 10 Year Plan to Eradicate Heroin and Cocaine Production, and Cassini. For the last, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - jingoism and no media dissent. If you want to go deeper into these things, I'm happy to discuss more. The basic case I'm trying to present does not relate so directly to these specific cases, rather the pattern of activity in media. And, of course, the apparently covert political policy being pursued.

That doesn't even make sense. You want two central global trade networks?

I'm discussing the heaps of loans given to dodgy leaderships which drag the country's population into "strategic adjustment programs" aka compulsory global consumerism. More from around [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3055415#post3055415 here] One globalised network of trade with centralised control.

Uh, Nick, newsflash: Russia really exists. The Soviet Union (as it was then) really did invade, occupy, and pretty much destroy Eastern Europe. They also really did kill tens of millions of their own people.

But we don't hate them now, because they're not communists.

Yeah, them buggers dropped another valium bomb on my neighbourhood just last week!

What are you talking about?

Check the moves of the oil business into pharmacology around 100 years ago. The aggressive policies they applied to competition in healthcare. 100 years down the line and all there is, pretty much, is drugs and surgery. No one looks at holistic perspective, it's 99% reductionist science, and it doesn't keep people healthy. Scientists don't want to look for systemic causation in ill health, they just want to find something that doesn't work and try and fix it in isolation. For a majority of cases this doesn't work because the cause is not being addressed. Ergo the emergence of SSRI and other prozac-related medications. There's no addressal of cause. People just sit on citalopram or whatever the latest ssri is and that's their life. Pharma companies absolutely will not develop an effective medication because it's bad for business. This is may be purely a capitalist issue, but the underlying effect is consistent with negative synarchy.

Covert?! There's nothing covert about the utterly ineffective illicit drug control policy of the US government (and of many other governments too).

The US government has consistently refused to apply known effective policies to drug addiction, especially for drugs such as heroin, which just keeps people doped up and not voting. They have refused to back plans to terminate heroin and coca production, pretty much covertly. they have blockaded the development of effective medications. They have tacitly approved the demonisation in the media of drug addicts and drugs, (heroin is just a narcotic analgesic, a painkiller, not the work of the devil).

The underlying consistent pattern is to keep people drugged up, legitimately or otherwise, and anyone who tries to change this will be blocked from doing so.

The basic thing is to keep people busy, doped up, and convinced there is a serious threat to their "freedom" somewhere "out there" from which they need the protection of government. You keep people living in fear, not living out their dreams. You deprive them of their birthright and manipulate so that they vote to not have it anyway.

This is the negative side! There is also a lot of positivity in our world.

Nick