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

[BobTheDonkey]

Isn't the whole notion of false flag terror attacks based on the mistaken belief that Al Qaeda doesn't exist?

Al Qaeda exists. Al Qaeda is comprised of people who see it as their God given mission to attack the US and its allies. So why should it seem so unlikely that someone associated with Al Qaeda would attempt to attack the US?

The whole false flag CT angle only works if terrorism is not a real threat. Sorry CTers, terrorism is real. You can't just start accusing people in power of inventing the whole thing, because then you start going down the ever widening inside jobby job rabbit hole... Keep following this path of speculation and before you know it you'll be talking about holograms, thermite, space based energy weapons and the goddamn Pentagon flyover.

Look, before anyone else labels me a CT (implying I'm a nut), I am not a CT. I'm simply approaching this with a skeptical eye.

Your argument is fallacious. Simply claiming that there would be no need because terrorism exists is intellectually lazy. We all know terrorism exists - but if it's not in our faces, how many people does it really affect? That's what this "attack" would be for - to bring it back home, to the front burner.

Nice slippery slope there. We're not talking about something that defies the laws of physics, or would require thousands of people to keep quiet about.

Is the conspiracy likely? No. But that doesn't make it impossible.

But, whatever, this post will, again, label me as a CT nutjob instead of someone that can at least be skeptical instead of just waving that majic "woo" wand around. Insert eyeroll here.

 

[Brainache]

So basically your argument is that if you don't understand what is glaringly obvious to others and their explanations elude you when I've just explained the same thing to my nine year old and he gets it, then "We" are the ones with the intellectual deficit?

Sits down with some pistachio nuts and a pint to watch the show.

[qimg]http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/popcornic3ba6.gif[/qimg]

I think your premise is understood, but it is based on the idea that terrorism isn't really a threat. Therefore it fails right out of the gate.

Are you going to come up with another one of these everytime some hapless radical fails to kill his targets?

 

[LightinDarkness]

Look, before anyone else labels me a CT (implying I'm a nut), I am not a CT. I'm simply approaching this with a skeptical eye.

Conspiracy theorist - one who supports a conspiracy theory.

Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
Date: 1909
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Looks like the shoe fits.

Your argument is fallacious. Simply claiming that there would be no need because terrorism exists is intellectually lazy. We all know terrorism exists - but if it's not in our faces, how many people does it really affect? That's what this "attack" would be for - to bring it back home, to the front burner.

Nice slippery slope there. We're not talking about something that defies the laws of physics, or would require thousands of people to keep quiet about.

Is the conspiracy likely? No. But that doesn't make it impossible.

But, whatever, this post will, again, label me as a CT nutjob instead of someone that can at least be skeptical instead of just waving that majic "woo" wand around. Insert eyeroll here.

The irony of someone who uses a variety of fallacies to back up your pet CT (including: appeal to ignorance, appeal to consequence, ad hominem, etc.) trying to point out fallacies in the argument of others is so ironic.

Your talking about something that would require at least hundreds of people to keep quiet and something that is not logically consistent, for which you have no evidence. And then you pull the martyr card for people pointing out this is a woo belief. Because clearly a belief in a conspiracy without evidence is what makes you a skeptic.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You have failed. You have been debunked, and your response is "um...NO." Sorry, but time to work on your CT some more.

Skepticism = thinking that perhaps you should need some evidence or logic before claiming a evil cabal is out to terrorize US citizens to keep up a war which completely fails.

Skepticism /= coming up with CTs to support your ideological biases because you wish they were real.

Time for you to go back to the drawing board.

You haven't even read my posts. You come in here attacking me, labeling me a CT without even paying attention to what I've posted.

I know this post is a breach of the ToS (or close to it)...but, seriously, at least post a realistic response to my posts, not just claim that I'm a CT, in denial, and that I'm making up theories to indulge my ideologues when I've stated, multiple times, that I don't really believe there was a conspiracy...just a what-if.

Get your rocks off correcting a misguided CT nutjob today?

I am not a CT nutjob. In fact, I have stated multiple times in this very thread that I don't really believe it was a conspiracy.

But instead of addressing the what-if with realistic responses that address the points raised, you simply claim that I'm a CT'er with an ideologue that needs justification. That, sir, is NOT skepticism. That is nothing different than what every Religious nut does when you ask them a question - they respond with non-answers and deflect.

Why does this kind of conspiracy require more than a handful of people to have been in on it?

Personal anecdotes are no more evidence of the terrorist being real than anything I've presented.

9/11, Military installations around the globe went to ThreatCon Delta. It was also relaxed. So the lowered security proves nothing. The intended effect wouldn't necessarily be to increase security, it could be to boost terrorism back to the public mind. That is a valid goal.

But, hey, go back to just dismissing this out of hand with your talk about how I'm just a CT, and my theories require a cabal of evil-minded people. Prove to me that you haven't, again, bothered to read anything I have to say in this thread.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Conspiracy theorist - one who supports a conspiracy theory.

Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
Date: 1909
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Looks like the shoe fits.



The irony of someone who uses a variety of fallacies to back up your pet CT (including: appeal to ignorance, appeal to consequence, ad hominem, etc.) trying to point out fallacies in the argument of others is so ironic.

Your talking about something that would require at least hundreds of people to keep quiet and something that is not logically consistent, for which you have no evidence. And then you pull the martyr card for people pointing out this is a woo belief. Because clearly a belief in a conspiracy without evidence is what makes you a skeptic.

You have yet to explain why this requires hundreds of people. You have yet to understand/acknowledge that I have stated plenty of times I don't believe there was really a conspiracy. But you're so caught up in correcting any semblance of woo that you're not even willing to admit the possibility that it was. It is indeed logically consistent, but that doesn't matter to you - because it's labeled a conspiracy, I'm instantly a nutjob for being willing to discuss the possibility thereof and you're instantly a skeptic b/c you dismiss it out of hand.

At least I can admit there's the possibility - and then in the same post agree that it isn't likely.

Welcome to ignore

 

[LightinDarkness]

<CT RANT>.

You have been read and debunked, by multiple people at this point. The fact that you don't like the fact that you've been debunked and cling desperately to your CT is not really relevant to the facts. Sadly, you didn't present anything unusual - just the usual CT diatribe of horrible logic and no evidence. Not even a challenge, really.

Thats why I quote people line by line and respond, because CTs LOVE using this tactic of ignoring all the evidence against them. You presented flawed logic and no evidence, and you were debunked. You can put your hands in your ears and scream "IM NOT LISTENING LALALALA IT WAS A FALSE FLAG", but this has little relationship to what actually occurred the thread.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think your premise is understood, but it is based on the idea that terrorism isn't really a threat. Therefore it fails right out of the gate.

Are you going to come up with another one of these everytime some hapless radical fails to kill his targets?

I don't think it's that we feel terrorism isn't a threat. We all know it is.

The goal would be to bring terrorism back to the forefront of the public mind.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You have been read and debunked, by multiple people at this point. The fact that you don't like the fact that you've been debunked and cling desperately to your CT is not really relevant to the facts.

Thats why I quote people line by line and respond, because CTs LOVE using this tactic of ignoring all the evidence against them. You have failed.

Actually, you're really the only one who's "Debunked" anything. And you haven't even really done that. You haven't actually addressed anything - you've simply labeled it woo, claimed that it was an inconsistent theory, and that a cabal of people would be required to be behind it.

Evidence that a cabal of people would be required?

Evidence that terrorism wasn't brought to the forefront of the public mindset?

 

[LightinDarkness]

You have yet to explain why this requires hundreds of people. You have yet to understand/acknowledge that I have stated plenty of times I don't believe there was really a conspiracy. But you're so caught up in correcting any semblance of woo that you're not even willing to admit the possibility that it was. It is indeed logically consistent, but that doesn't matter to you - because it's labeled a conspiracy, I'm instantly a nutjob for being willing to discuss the possibility thereof and you're instantly a skeptic b/c you dismiss it out of hand.

Interestingly, the only person calling you a nutjob is yourself. For someone who doesn't believe in this CT you sure are getting really hysterical over this. Of course, I did demonstrate why this lie about "oh it wouldn't take any number of people to carry this out" was wrong - its a few posts above your latest rant. But of course, you don't read anything that is inconsistent with your desire to believe this CT.

At least I can admit there's the possibility - and then in the same post agree that it isn't likely.

Welcome to ignore

Admitting the possibility of something for which you have 0 evidence for just makes you a woo. I like to believe things based on evidence, but that is what makes me a skeptic.

Oh and the ignore thing is cute - when you know you've got nothing, just ignore everyone! Don't worry, you have inspired me to continue to reply and debunk your posts. I know you don't really have me on ignore (CTs cant STAND knowing they are being debunked but not being able to read it), but now you'll have to act like I am.

Not that we lose much in the process, since all your responses equate to are "LALALA NO!"

 

[Brainache]

Look, before anyone else labels me a CT (implying I'm a nut), I am not a CT. I'm simply approaching this with a skeptical eye.

Your argument is fallacious. Simply claiming that there would be no need because terrorism exists is intellectually lazy. We all know terrorism exists - but if it's not in our faces, how many people does it really affect? That's what this "attack" would be for - to bring it back home, to the front burner.

Nice slippery slope there. We're not talking about something that defies the laws of physics, or would require thousands of people to keep quiet about.

Is the conspiracy likely? No. But that doesn't make it impossible.

But, whatever, this post will, again, label me as a CT nutjob instead of someone that can at least be skeptical instead of just waving that majic "woo" wand around. Insert eyeroll here.

Intellectually lazy? Me? The guy who dropped out of an arts degree because I couldn't handle the workload? Yep, you got me.

OK. I concede that this CT doesn't actually defy physics. The logistics of just how many would need to be involved is something I can't comment on, but I suspect it would be more than four people.

Your CT also requires that Joe Leibeman or whoever it was who planned it, is willing to risk the consequences of discovery. Those consequences would likely include the death penalty for commiting an act of terror (even unsuccessful attacks are acts of terror). You seem to be saying that whoever planned this, thought that the chance of escalating the war on terror was something worth risking a death sentence for. How likely is that?

Having said that, it may still be possible, but that is a long way from probable. I wouldn't put the probability of something like this being a false flag any higher than one or two percent. It's just too risky for people in power to throw their lives away for such little gain. The risks outweigh the benefits by too huge a margin and if a politician knows anything, it's risk assesment.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Actually, you're really the only one who's "Debunked" anything. And you haven't even really done that. You haven't actually addressed anything - you've simply labeled it woo, claimed that it was an inconsistent theory, and that a cabal of people would be required to be behind it.

Evidence that a cabal of people would be required?

Evidence that terrorism wasn't brought to the forefront of the public mindset?

Yawn, more whining from you. Ive demonstrated numerous times why this CT has no evidence nor logic, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. I have done more than enough actually, since you have the burden of proof - I don't need to present anything. That I have and you have ignored it just makes this all the more hilarious. All you do is sit here and cry about being called a CT for supporting a CT without evidence.

By the way, its really obvious that your on the retreat here. Its a classic CT tactic to retreat from providing any evidence for their theories and instead just sticking to the claim that its "possible." Sure, its possible, but its also possible we could all die in the next second from nuclear war. That something may be in the realm of possibility does not mean there is any reasonable chance of it occuring.

 

[truethat]

I think your premise is understood, but it is based on the idea that terrorism isn't really a threat. Therefore it fails right out of the gate.

Are you going to come up with another one of these everytime some hapless radical fails to kill his targets?

Not really. Terrorism held at bay is always a threat. Terrorism was a threat before 9-11 but think of the way soicety responded to the bombing of the USS Cole compared to the way the society is reacting to this guy now.

Terrorism is always a threat but sometimes people need to be reminded of it. Right now all the media has been focused on Tiger Woods, the failed medical insurance proposal, and the way everyone is losing their jobs. So people kind of don't care as much about terrorism. This puts it right back on the front burner of the stove.

And why do I need to come up with another one of these "every time" it's just this one that strikes me as a set up. I'm not a CTer by practice so this was just an interesting foray to me.

 

[Brainache]

...
The goal would be to bring terrorism back to the forefront of the public mind.

Isn't that also the goal of the real terrorists?

 

[truethat]

Yawn, more whining from you. Ive demonstrated numerous times why this CT has no evidence nor logic, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. I have done more than enough actually, since you have the burden of proof - I don't need to present anything. That I have and you have ignored it just makes this all the more hilarious. All you do is sit here and cry about being called a CT for supporting a CT without evidence.

By the way, its really obvious that your on the retreat here. Its a classic CT tactic to retreat from providing any evidence for their theories and instead just sticking to the claim that its "possible." Sure, its possible, but its also possible we could all die in the next second from nuclear war. That something may be in the realm of possibility does not mean there is any reasonable chance of it occuring.

You are aware I hope that we're just fooling around. Why are you getting so flipped out. We're both just speculating. I thought it was pretty obvious I wasn't taking this too seriously, and neither is Bob the Donkey so maybe you ought to take the pine cone out of your arse and chillax.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Intellectually lazy? Me? The guy who dropped out of an arts degree because I couldn't handle the workload? Yep, you got me.

OK. I concede that this CT doesn't actually defy physics. The logistics of just how many would need to be involved is something I can't comment on, but I suspect it would be more than four people.

Your CT also requires that Joe Leibeman or whoever it was who planned it, is willing to risk the consequences of discovery. Those consequences would likely include the death penalty for commiting an act of terror (even unsuccessful attacks are acts of terror). You seem to be saying that whoever planned this, thought that the chance of escalating the war on terror was something worth risking a death sentence for. How likely is that?

Having said that, it may still be possible, but that is a long way from probable. I wouldn't put the probability of something like this being a false flag any higher than one or two percent. It's just too risky for people in power to throw their lives away for such little gain. The risks outweigh the benefits by too huge a margin and if a politician knows anything, it's risk assesment.

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

 

[LightinDarkness]

tl;dr version of this thread:

CTs: The underwear bombing guy was a secret plot by the US government to scare people and create public support for the war on terrorism.
Everyone else: Evidence?
CTs: I don't have to have evidence! I'm just saying its possible.
Everyone else: Evidence?
CTs: I don't have any evidence...but I'm just saying its in the realm of possibility.
Everyone else: Evidence?
CTs: No evidence, were just speculating. We have no proof. Your not a skeptic because you won't believe in the conspiracy without evidence. And stop calling me a CT for believing in something without any evidence.

Good job, CTs. Alright, seriously, its been fun but I can only handle such levels of ignorance for so long. I'll let you guys insult me and work yourself up into a conspiracy fervor over this without worrying about those pesky facts. Watching so many CTs act so hysterical and foaming at the mouth over this has been hilarious, though.

 

[truethat]

Isn't that also the goal of the real terrorists?

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.

 

[truethat]

tl;dr version of this thread:

CTs: The underwear bombing guy was a secret plot by the US government to scare people and create public support for the war on terrorism.
Everyone else: Evidence?
CTs: I don't have to have evidence! I'm just saying its possible.
Everyone else: Evidence?
CTs: I don't have any evidence...but I'm just saying its in the realm of possibility. And your not a skeptic because you won't believe in the conspiracy. And stop calling me a CT for believing in something without any evidence.

Good job, CTs. Alright, seriously, its been fun but I can only handle such levels of ignorance for so long. I'll let you guys insult me and work yourself up into a conspiracy fervor over this without worrying about those pesky facts.

Remember that pine cone I mentioned? Lmao!

No one on this thread believes it, we're just talking about the possibility of it.

 

[Brainache]

...
And why do I need to come up with another one of these "every time" it's just this one that strikes me as a set up. I'm not a CTer by practice so this was just an interesting foray to me.

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.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Isn't that also the goal of the real terrorists?

Sort of answered that with my last post (2nd para).