What Motivates Conspiracy Theorists?

[abaddon]

To sum up how and why I am doing what I have been doing for the last few few, we have to take a more historical look on the whole thing.

Back in the 80ies the world was suffering from the Cold War, and celebrated its end. It left a huge vacuum though when it comes to intelligence agencies, and good reasons to fund them. For a few years funding of intelligence services actually went downwards for the first time in a while. These agencies where not good at downsizing though. They were used to having whatever they needed, when they needed it.

Then in 1997 a group of people made PNAC. The Project for a New American Century. Its goal was to strengthen Americans presence in the world as a world power, and that goal was not something to happen anytime soon, unless something, like a new Pearl Harbor, was to happen. They wrote something like that in a report a year or two before 9/11, where the same people who wrote it, happened to be among George Bushs most trusted people. Amongst other things, handling his affairs in the Middle East.

Take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

A list of Federal Political Scandals. Presidents should not have the power to overrule the US Constitution, but that is what George W. Bush did when he signed the treaty that made it possible for the NSA to make PRISM, and listen in on US telephone calls without a warrant, since 2001.

It still took 5-6 years before PRISM was uncovered by Snowden, the should be, national hero.

Anyone care to guess what the focus on Syria is all about?

Come on, debate real conspiracy theories instead of just debating the people you think you understand so well.

Lovely. Except the other 95% of humanity does not care about America.

 

[Robrob]

Then in 1997 a group of people made PNAC. The Project for a New American Century. Its goal was to strengthen Americans presence in the world as a world power, and that goal was not something to happen anytime soon, unless something, like a new Pearl Harbor, was to happen. They wrote something like that in a report a year or two before 9/11, where the same people who wrote it, happened to be among George Bushs most trusted people. Amongst other things, handling his affairs in the Middle East.

Have you actually read this? Your words don't suggest it.

A list of Federal Political Scandals. Presidents should not have the power to overrule the US Constitution, but that is what George W. Bush did when he signed the treaty that made it possible for the NSA to make PRISM, and listen in on US telephone calls without a warrant, since 2001.

Wrong.

It still took 5-6 years before PRISM was uncovered by Snowden, the should be, national hero.

Wrong. The NSA intercepts were public knowledge as of 2006.

Anyone care to guess what the focus on Syria is all about?

Assad using sarin gas on his own people?

 

[kblood]

Have you actually read this? Your words don't suggest it.

Too many times I have read it. I am tired of quoting it again and again. But if it helps...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
-------- from the website:
View the Project for the New American Century's report, Rebuilding America's Defenses released September 2000.

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, January 28, 2005
-----------------------------
The PDF linked here is where most the juicy stuff is. The report named, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" written one year before 9/11.

Page 51 of 76.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Wrong.

"NSA warrantless surveillance – Shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush (R) implemented a secret program by the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on domestic telephone calls by American citizens without warrants, thus by-passing the FISA court which must approve all such actions. (2002)[99] In 2010, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled this practice to be illegal."

And this is wrong... how exactly?

Wrong. The NSA intercepts were public knowledge as of 2006.

PRISM started in 2007. You link an article from 2006 where they had found out about NSA tapping phone lines, which had already started in 2001. So you are mixing things together I am sorry to say. Might be because I was not being clear in my own formulation. If so, I am sorry to have confused you.

Assad using sarin gas on his own people?

He what now? Fine, I would like to see some evidence of that. And whether the rebels ever used chemical weapons. Does anyone disagree with the Obama and John Kerry verdict that Assad was behind these attacks?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Page 51 of 76.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for rules 0 and 12.

 

[LSSBB]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

I don't get the whole thing anyway.

Let's say you complain about your neighbor letting its dog run loose, and say he won't wise up until a car hits the dog.

Then a car hits the dog.

Does your statement mean you drove the car??

 

[TheDoLittle]

Does your statement mean you drove the car??

No, the Illumanati/Obama/Bigfoot/Autonomous Google Car Out to Rule Humanity did.

 

[kblood]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

You sure is trying to be high and mighty with that statement. You clearly have me there, I cannot be right when you obviously know better.

Could you please tell me the context I am missing? Or is that beneath you?

I don't get the whole thing anyway.

Let's say you complain about your neighbor letting its dog run loose, and say he won't wise up until a car hits the dog.

Then a car hits the dog.

Does your statement mean you drove the car??

Its a good point you have there. They did not state that US would be attacked. They stated that their program for rebuilding US defenses would take a very long time, unless USA got attacked in a big way. They want to be very proactive.

Did you know Osama Bin Laden has family in the US?

Page 51-52:
"That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad."

Seems like their plan have gone pretty well. Because what exactly have happened in Iran, Iraq, Libya now Syria since 2000? The attack did not come from any of these countries though. So it seems to me that the report is not exactly perfect. But it does seem to have planned very well for the last decade now. What exactly has these countries done directly against the US since 9/11? What threat are they posing to the US?

Lets go back to the first 5 pages. The introduction pages. It states there:

"In particular, we need to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
"

What do they mean by, needing to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"? Any one care to explain?

 

[Robrob]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

I suspect he's seeing what he wants to see.

Which is why he continues to post links rather than simply explaining his claim in his own words.

 

[abaddon]

You sure is trying to be high and mighty with that statement. You clearly have me there, I cannot be right when you obviously know better.

Think about that statement for a moment. When it comes to neural surgery, there are buckets of people who know better than I. When it comes to building a nuclear powerplant, there are oodles of people who know better than I. When it comes to sending a man to the moon, there are oceans of people who know better than I.

Your problem is that you cannot accept that you may be wrong.

 

[kblood]

Think about that statement for a moment. When it comes to neural surgery, there are buckets of people who know better than I. When it comes to building a nuclear powerplant, there are oodles of people who know better than I. When it comes to sending a man to the moon, there are oceans of people who know better than I.

Your problem is that you cannot accept that you may be wrong.

I know I may be wrong. I just expect people here to actually try and prove it. Or at least come with evidence of me being wrong. It just seems most people here does not care to bother looking themselves.

Lovely. Except the other 95% of humanity does not care about America.

Where does this even come from?

 

[abaddon]

Where does this even come from?

From here.

To sum up how and why I am doing what I have been doing for the last few few, we have to take a more historical look on the whole thing.

Back in the 80ies the world was suffering from the Cold War, and celebrated its end. It left a huge vacuum though when it comes to intelligence agencies, and good reasons to fund them. For a few years funding of intelligence services actually went downwards for the first time in a while. These agencies where not good at downsizing though. They were used to having whatever they needed, when they needed it.

Then in 1997 a group of people made PNAC. The Project for a New American Century. Its goal was to strengthen Americans presence in the world as a world power, and that goal was not something to happen anytime soon, unless something, like a new Pearl Harbor, was to happen. They wrote something like that in a report a year or two before 9/11, where the same people who wrote it, happened to be among George Bushs most trusted people. Amongst other things, handling his affairs in the Middle East.

Take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

A list of Federal Political Scandals. Presidents should not have the power to overrule the US Constitution, but that is what George W. Bush did when he signed the treaty that made it possible for the NSA to make PRISM, and listen in on US telephone calls without a warrant, since 2001.

It still took 5-6 years before PRISM was uncovered by Snowden, the should be, national hero.

Anyone care to guess what the focus on Syria is all about?

Come on, debate real conspiracy theories instead of just debating the people you think you understand so well.

Lovely. Except the other 95% of humanity does not care about America.

 

[kblood]

From here.

Oookay. Since you want to be difficult, I guess I have to elaborate. Why are you claiming 95% of the world does not care about America? More than 5% of the worlds population is American. Seems to be enough to prove you wrong.

 

[Mudcat]

Does anyone disagree with the Obama and John Kerry verdict that Assad was behind these attacks?

I agree that it's highly likely that Assad was responsible for those attacks, although I believe it's more likely it was the actions of a separate group. Possibly one of the many extremist groups like Hamas, aiming to provoke reaction from the United States. Something like that.

But the United States launching said attack as a false flag operation to justify United States involvement? That's just more conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[kblood]

I agree that it's highly likely that Assad was responsible for those attacks, although I believe it's more likely it was the actions of a separate group. Possibly on of the many extremist groups like Hamas, aiming to provoke reaction from the United States. Something like that.

But the United States launching said attack as a false flag operation to justify United States involvement? That's just more conspiracy theory nonsense.

Well... CIA does seem to be funding the ones who might have done so:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/

"We have some promises from the U.S. administration of shipment of weapons in a short period of time, but until now we have not received any," said Free Syrian Army Political and Media Coordinator Louay al-Mokdad.

Or at least, they seem to be about to. Can't say if they did do so before.

 

[LSSBB]

You sure is trying to be high and mighty with that statement. You clearly have me there, I cannot be right when you obviously know better.

Could you please tell me the context I am missing? Or is that beneath you?



Its a good point you have there. They did not state that US would be attacked. They stated that their program for rebuilding US defenses would take a very long time, unless USA got attacked in a big way. They want to be very proactive.

Did you know Osama Bin Laden has family in the US?

Page 51-52:
"That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad."

Seems like their plan have gone pretty well. Because what exactly have happened in Iran, Iraq, Libya now Syria since 2000? The attack did not come from any of these countries though. So it seems to me that the report is not exactly perfect. But it does seem to have planned very well for the last decade now. What exactly has these countries done directly against the US since 9/11? What threat are they posing to the US?

Lets go back to the first 5 pages. The introduction pages. It states there:

"In particular, we need to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
"

What do they mean by, needing to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"? Any one care to explain?

The question of how small to draw down the US Military was argued throughout the '90s and '00s (maybe we should call them 'Uh-Ohs'). The repeated point was whether we should be capable of handling a two-front war - essentially two theaters of operations at once. This arose originally from WWII, where the US had to take on enemies in the East and West that were threatening the US and its allies and interests. After the cold war, this was generally postulated as "say we had to fight [Iran]/[Iraq], and defend [South Korea]/[Taiwan]*". This factors directly into how many aircraft carrier battlegroups and Air Wings / Armies the U.S. would have at the ready. More hawkish folks want a full two front-plus capability, dovish somewhat less.

 

[Nick Terry]

Oookay. Since you want to be difficult, I guess I have to elaborate. Why are you claiming 95% of the world does not care about America? More than 5% of the worlds population is American. Seems to be enough to prove you wrong.

No, less than 5% of the world's population lives in the United States. World population is over 7 billion; US population is just over 300 million.

 

[kblood]

No, less than 5% of the world's population lives in the United States. World population is over 7 billion; US population is just over 300 million.

He said America. You forgot the southern population US population is 4% rounded down.

 

[kblood]

The question of how small to draw down the US Military was argued throughout the '90s and '00s (maybe we should call them 'Uh-Ohs'). The repeated point was whether we should be capable of handling a two-front war - essentially two theaters of operations at once. This arose originally from WWII, where the US had to take on enemies in the East and West that were threatening the US and its allies and interests. After the cold war, this was generally postulated as "say we had to fight [Iran]/[Iraq], and defend [South Korea]/[Taiwan]*". This factors directly into how many aircraft carrier battlegroups and Air Wings / Armies the U.S. would have at the ready. More hawkish folks want a full two front-plus capability, dovish somewhat less.

That does make sense, putting it into perspective. Still, the US is clearly a war machine. It could try to delegate some of the responsibility to the UN, although until now that has been proven not to work so well. Without US, the initiative is simply too slow.

But thanks for the response. I still find the timing of the report suspicious, but now I understand the choice of words better.

 

[Nick Terry]

He said America. You forgot the southern population US population is 4% rounded down.

And in the context it's crystal clear that 'America' was being used as a synonym for the United States of...

 

[BStrong]

You sure is trying to be high and mighty with that statement. You clearly have me there, I cannot be right when you obviously know better.

Could you please tell me the context I am missing? Or is that beneath you?



Its a good point you have there. They did not state that US would be attacked. They stated that their program for rebuilding US defenses would take a very long time, unless USA got attacked in a big way. They want to be very proactive.

Did you know Osama Bin Laden has family in the US?

Page 51-52:
"That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad."

Seems like their plan have gone pretty well. Because what exactly have happened in Iran, Iraq, Libya now Syria since 2000? The attack did not come from any of these countries though. So it seems to me that the report is not exactly perfect. But it does seem to have planned very well for the last decade now. What exactly has these countries done directly against the US since 9/11? What threat are they posing to the US?

Lets go back to the first 5 pages. The introduction pages. It states there:

"In particular, we need to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
"

What do they mean by, needing to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"? Any one care to explain?

See: WWII.

The fact is that no Politician, General, philosopher or Pundit can pre-determine what threats a nation will face or how many threats in what geographic area that nation may face, and responsible leadership needs to address the possibility that two or more simultaneous threats will arise.