My First Conspiracy Theory This "Terrorist Attack" is a set up

[truethat]

I wasn't attacking you and I apologize if it came across that way. I meant that simply dismissing this as a conspiracy theory because there are actually terrorists isn't really a strong reason.

If you needed a terrorist attack to garner public support for X, which would you prefer - a real terrorist that you have little to no control over, or an agent that would do exactly what you wanted, scare people while minimizing actual damage?

I agree that it's highly unlikely - but that doesn't mean we should just dismiss it immediately and label anyone who's willing to question just what happened as a nutjob

Thank you very much for understanding it. And though I might be a flip chicken nut job, that happened LONG before this Conspiracy theory came to mind.


But seriously, why are people so opposed to the possibility. I mean I'm curious. If you think of something like this, how in the world would I be able to prove it? I'm just a mom in Brooklyn. So to suggest that because I can't give any evidence right here and now means that the conversation should be over just really seems weird to me. What's wrong with discussing the possibility.

Isn't that how building a theory works?

 

[truethat]

You don't need to, but you could. Anybody could, it's what the nutjobs at PrisonPlanet do all the time.

I enjoy speculating about these things as much as anyone, but you have to keep it in perspective.

Too much risk, too little gain = unrealistic scenario.

I'm not sure what you think too much risk amounts to

Take me.

Say you come to me from the CIA and say "Look we need support of the American public to continue the war and it's getting sticky right now, so we're hooking you up, you'll go on the plane sit down, you'll ignight a dude fuse that will cause a lot of smoke and chaos, the bomb won't go off."

You'll get arrested and sent to jail, Then we'll roll you out into a witness protection program. You get a million bucks and a new identity and your family is taken care of for life. Cool?

How much risk is that? If I start to talk you kill me, I know this so I shut up.

Or how about this risk, a CIA agent engages the boy and sets him up with a dud bomb. He really thinks he's doing it but the higher ups know he's going to get caught, media frenzy. Done deed.

What exactly is the risk here.

I see zero risk massive pay off.

 

[Brainache]

Sure. But that doesn't mean the CIA can't use that to implicate others.

Or is your argument that Terrorists have the monopoly on these sort of tactics.

My point is that the CIA don't need to do these things, that's what the terrorists are for.

Do terrorists have a monopoly on terrorism? I guess so, because if it's the CIA doing it, then the CIA are the terrorists. The act defines the perpetrators as terrorists whether they are doing it for Allah or Uncle Sam.

So you can say that the CIA is a terrorist organisation if you want (and there are plenty who would agree with that (Jihad Jane where are you?)), but where does that lead you? Rogue agents, secret cabals and the public powerless in the face of the CIA terror machine. Welcome to the wacky world of Alex Jones!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

My point is that the CIA don't need to do these things, that's what the terrorists are for.

Do terrorists have a monopoly on terrorism? I guess so, because if it's the CIA doing it, then the CIA are the terrorists. The act defines the perpetrators as terrorists whether they are doing it for Allah or Uncle Sam.

So you can say that the CIA is a terrorist organisation if you want (and there are plenty who would agree with that (Jihad Jane where are you?)), but where does that lead you? Rogue agents, secret cabals and the public powerless in the face of the CIA terror machine. Welcome to the wacky world of Alex Jones!

True. But which is better in the end: a failed terrorist attack that you had some control over or letting a real terrorist go crazy on a plane?


I wouldn't say admitting that the CIA bends the law (or engages in terrorism - see Cuba during the 1970s, et al.) necessarily leads directly to the public being powerless. There's a long road to reach that level. Public opinion is incredibly powerful. The CIA, therefore, must work inside that realm.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not sure what you think too much risk amounts to

Take me.

Say you come to me from the CIA and say "Look we need support of the American public to continue the war and it's getting sticky right now, so we're hooking you up, you'll go on the plane sit down, you'll ignight a dude fuse that will cause a lot of smoke and chaos, the bomb won't go off."

You'll get arrested and sent to jail, Then we'll roll you out into a witness protection program. You get a million bucks and a new identity and your family is taken care of for life. Cool?

How much risk is that? If I start to talk you kill me, I know this so I shut up.

Or how about this risk, a CIA agent engages the boy and sets him up with a dud bomb. He really thinks he's doing it but the higher ups know he's going to get caught, media frenzy. Done deed.

What exactly is the risk here.

I see zero risk massive pay off.

The risk is to the guy who planned it. If anyone involved spills the beans, he not only loses all his power and wealth, he will likely face execution for being a terrorist.

It would only take one slip of the tongue and the cat is out of the bag, the poo hits the air conditioner, the penny drops, the balloon goes up and it's all over bar the shouting.

Why would someone in a position of power like Senator Joe Leibeman risk his life for some unnecessary escalation of the war on terror? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Brainache]

True. But which is better in the end: a failed terrorist attack that you had some control over or letting a real terrorist go crazy on a plane?

Neither. It would be better in the end if there were no terrorists at all. What makes you suggest that the CIA had control of this guy?

A real terrorist went crazy on a plane. Luckily for all concerned he was unsuccessful. Not all terrorist attacks succeed.

I wouldn't say admitting that the CIA bends the law (or engages in terrorism - see Cuba during the 1970s, et al.) necessarily leads directly to the public being powerless. There's a long road to reach that level. Public opinion is incredibly powerful. The CIA, therefore, must work inside that realm.

Except when they don't want to and decide instead to manufacture false flag terror attacks to remind people that terror attacks are real....

 

[truethat]

Neither. It would be better in the end if there were no terrorists at all. What makes you suggest that the CIA had control of this guy?

A real terrorist went crazy on a plane. Luckily for all concerned he was unsuccessful. Not all terrorist attacks succeed.




Except when they don't want to and decide instead to manufacture false flag terror attacks to remind people that terror attacks are real....

What is this "false flag" you keep talking about?

 

[truethat]

The risk is to the guy who planned it. If anyone involved spills the beans, he not only loses all his power and wealth, he will likely face execution for being a terrorist.

It would only take one slip of the tongue and the cat is out of the bag, the poo hits the air conditioner, the penny drops, the balloon goes up and it's all over bar the shouting.

Why would someone in a position of power like Senator Joe Leibeman risk his life for some unnecessary escalation of the war on terror? It doesn't make sense.

I didn't say Joe Liberman was in on it, it just seemed too conveniently placed for my liking.

Also one slip of the tongue and the cats out of the bag and that's it? Look how everyone is reacting in this thread. I doubt ONE SLIP OF THE TONGUE would bring it all down.

You are all flipping out at just the suggestion of it. It would take EVIDENCE and aside from the guy ratting himself out, how would you prove it?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, but WHY would we be going after Yemen again? Last I heard, while there are some terrorist training camps there, Yemen doesn't support terrorism as blatantly as countries like Iran do.

I may be out of date with that information though, but I still don't know of any reason why we would suddenly feel the need to attack YEMEN of all places.

To gain control of the goats, of course!

 

[Brainache]

What is this "false flag" you keep talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

I didn't say Joe Liberman was in on it, it just seemed too conveniently placed for my liking.

Also one slip of the tongue and the cats out of the bag and that's it? Look how everyone is reacting in this thread. I doubt ONE SLIP OF THE TONGUE would bring it all down.

You are all flipping out at just the suggestion of it. It would take EVIDENCE and aside from the guy ratting himself out, how would you prove it?

OK, try this: The CIA approach you to carry out their attack. You say "OK", but think you might want to cover your butt in case something goes wrong. So you secretly record your training, take pictures of your handlers, etc. Before you do the deed you place all of this evidence with lawyers or someone you can trust with instructions that they should send it all to the New York Times (or wherever) in the event that you die mysteriously or disappear.

The same could apply for anyone else in on the scheme. This is not some noble cause we are talking about, it is an act of terror designed to scare people into giving up their precious freedoms.

Not only that, but the number of people involved in the plot starts increasing dramatically when you start talking about witness protection and family relocation etc. Remember no one can ever speak about it to anyone for the rest of their lives...

Also, how many people did they approach to take part in this scheme before someone agreed? What would they have to do to anyone who wouldn't co-operate? That's right- bodies start to pile up in the hallways after a while and people notice that sort of thing...

I'm not dismissing this out of hand, I'm basing my dismissal on the sheer impossibility of keeping something like this secret.

 

[truethat]

Ok so take the same scenario but the deal is the CIA assists the "terrorist" in getting in the situation. Only the terrorist has no idea that the people he is dealing with are narcs and he's being set up.

Now what will you say to dismiss it out of hand?

This isn't a Ben Affleck film where the CIA are idiots that do sloppy work so they get busted. This would be the easiest thing in the world to set up.

Your insistance that it's impossible or so crazily difficult is just dumb. It's really simple to do.

 

[truethat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Hmm so this is a recognized tactic in warfare though not legal and yet you continue to insist it's patently obsurd. Okie dokie.

 

[truethat]

Found this about our friend the terrorist.

Seems to me he was ripe for the picking. The perfect plant.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6971071.ece

 

[Skeptic]

Well how am I supposed to get evidence sitting on my butt here in NYC of an event that just happened that totally is being covered up by the CIA?

You're wrong. It's not a CIA coverup. It's a reptilian zionist Masonic coverup. They did it and they're just blaming the CIA.

Evidence? How am I supposed to get evidence sitting on my butt somewhere, when the reptilian zionist Masons covered it all up anyway?

But it's true. Trust me.

 

[Skeptic]

To gain control of the goats, of course!

And trust me, you don't want to know why...

 

[truethat]

You're wrong. It's not a CIA coverup. It's a reptilian zionist Masonic coverup. They did it and they're just blaming the CIA.

Evidence? How am I supposed to get evidence sitting on my butt somewhere, when the reptilian zionist Masons covered it all up anyway?

But it's true. Trust me.

Wow I had no idea it went so deep.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

A plant?!?

You can't be serious. Like profiling any kind of patterned behavior, occassionally you come across those that don't quite fit the mold but still cross the line for whatever reason.

Abdulmutallab was by all appearances a fairly bright, well educated, moderate Muslim from a well-to-do family. 9/11 pilot Ziad Jarrah's experience was similar. These aren't starving madrassah kids who have been radicalized since birth. On paper, they had everything going for them. So did the Unabomber.

But these are examples of guys that go against the profile, that have one single event or fixation grow into an all-consuming desire necessary to override whatever moral compass they once had.

Whether it's isolation, loneliness, desparation, a desire to be part of something grand and moving, these are the most dangerous killers of all since they can move amongst us. They can walk right up to you, look you in the eye, smile and shake your hand, but in the words of Patrick Bateman they "are simply not there."

If you think this sort of thing could be pulled of by one of our own intelligence agencies for whatever reason, I'd encourage you to get educated on them. What they do - who works for them - what their goals are. You'll see that for the most part they aren't trying to make things happen so much as maintain the forever losing struggle of trying to be one step ahead of world events and crises. Often they are beaten to the punch by the worldwide reach of news reporting agencies. That's why they have entire departments dedicated to monitoring worldwide news reporting.

But that's beside the point.

Abdulmutallab wasn't a plant. He's a human being that made a choice.

 

[Brainache]

Ok so take the same scenario but the deal is the CIA assists the "terrorist" in getting in the situation. Only the terrorist has no idea that the people he is dealing with are narcs and he's being set up.

Sort of like that scene in Team America when "Ahmed" walks into a terrorist bar in Cairo to infiltrate the terrorists? I'm sure it happens all the time...

Now what will you say to dismiss it out of hand?

This isn't a Ben Affleck film where the CIA are idiots that do sloppy work so they get busted. This would be the easiest thing in the world to set up.

Your insistance that it's impossible or so crazily difficult is just dumb. It's really simple to do.

Seriously? It's really easy for the CIA to take a young Muslim man and radicalise him to the point of committing a suicide attack?

Just how many people were involved in this thing again?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you figure they'd all have to be in on it?

I figured the setup was more of the 'terrorist' didn't properly mix the chemicals on purpose. It's a scare, but not a terribly deadly one. After all, why wait till a mere 1hr before landing on a long international flight? If the goal is really to take a flight out (with few to no survivors), why not do it mid-Atlantic?

ETA: Note that I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. But, seriously, let's at least be skeptical before we just wave our hands in dismissal...

So this guy is going to be in court and not give it away he was acting all along and the CIA or whomever put him up to it?

How far fetched are you planning to imagine the possibilities here? Are the doctors and nurses who took care of his burns in on it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would it have to involve all the people on the plane? If the guy worked for the CIA or whatever, he gets on a plane and acts like a terrorist, choosing to detonate "firecrackers" which really wouldn't do damage enough to hurt anyone. He gets caught in front of all the passengers during a holiday season where many people are flying. The public freaks and voila, Lieberman is on the road to Yemen.

So the folks in Amsterdam who let the guy on the plane with no passport, were they in on it? Was that planned? How about the father? Is he imaginary and this guy's real parents would not know him from the photos?

There is no way the guy was acting out the part. If that were the case then why have so many things that could have kept him off the plane in the Amsterdam airport?