What Motivates Conspiracy Theorists?

[kblood]

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

Sorry. It was a joke, I do agree on that point. I was just a bit surprised. You made a good point. Still, more than 5% of humanity seems to care about the US. Especially with 4% living in the US.

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.

^^

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.

Yes, LSSBB already made me aware of this. But thank you for pointing it out as well anyway.

 

[Robrob]

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

It's a flaw seen in many CT. Insisting incident "X" was in fact a highly complex false flag "to justify US involvement" when the US has (repeatedly) shown it needs no such incident "X" to become involved in foreign affairs.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

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.

You seem to be under the illusion anyone needs to prove anything to you.

YOU make claim.
YOU prove claim.
Savvy?

 

[kblood]

You seem to be under the illusion anyone needs to prove anything to you.

YOU make claim.
YOU prove claim.
Savvy?

I made claims, AND posted evidence. Proof is only proof in the eye of the beholder. I did not post evidence for all claims, but neither do I expect counter evidence for claims without any evidence.

Savvy?

Your train of though is what leaves this forum with ridicule rather than debunking, even when debunking ought to be the action taken.

 

[Robrob]

I made claims, AND posted evidence. Proof is only proof in the eye of the beholder. I did not post evidence for all claims, but neither do I expect counter evidence for claims without any evidence.

You claimed PNAC was responsible for 911. Your "evidence" for this was a single ambiguous sentence cherry picked from a 90 page public document. You have provided no other supporting evidence for your claim of fact.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Mudcat]

It's a flaw seen in many CT. Insisting incident "X" was in fact a highly complex false flag "to justify US involvement" when the US has (repeatedly) shown it needs no such incident "X" to become involved in foreign affairs.

Indeed. Let us take the current situation in Syria (what the hell is wrong with the middle-east anyhow?), from what I understand we had ships and troops out there for a while now poised for action. Which makes "The recent chemical strikes were false flag operation intended to justify American intervention" a stupid claim.

 

[kblood]

You claimed PNAC was responsible for 911. Your "evidence" for this was a single ambiguous sentence cherry picked from a 90 page public document. You have provided no other supporting evidence for your claim of fact.

Did I miss anything?

As Mudcat wrote, I posted about Syria as well, and I posted links about how it might be a false flag operation, the US has supported Syria's opposition for a long time. The evidence might be thin, but evidence none the less. No reason claiming I only made claims. People certainly seem very hostile here.

 

[Robrob]

As Mudcat wrote, I posted about Syria as well, and I posted links about how it might be a false flag operation, the US has supported Syria's opposition for a long time. The evidence might be thin, but evidence none the less. No reason claiming I only made claims. People certainly seem very hostile here.

You seem to have confused "evidence" with "guesses."

 

[kblood]

You seem to have confused "evidence" with "guesses."

I still stand by what I wrote. Put together this report is about rebuilding US defenses, and they did not write about defending themselves. They wrote

"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;”

So the US stated, it needs to "fight and win wars". Not just being able to do so. And I still have not seen anyone who could explain the actual other context of the sentence about "a new pearl harbor".

It did explain quite a bit that that US of course have to be READY to fight and win multiple wars. But the wording in report seems to support war mongering. That the US HAVE to take initiative to seem strong in the eyes of its people and its allies.

Or should I copy paste the whole report, before you would see it as "evidence" in your eyes?

 

[Robrob]

I still stand by what I wrote. Put together this report is about rebuilding US defenses, and they did not write about defending themselves. They wrote

"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;”

To save time, please allow me to dumb down the PNAC bullet points for you:

• defend the American homeland = obviously, defend the US.
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars = E.G. fight Germany and Japan on a two front war.
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions = E.G. our continued support of the DMZ between North and South Korea.
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;” = Upgrading and modernizing US forces.

So the US stated, it needs to "fight and win wars". Not just being able to do so.

Do you think nations plan on fighting and losing wars?

And I still have not seen anyone who could explain the actual other context of the sentence about "a new pearl harbor".

It's been explained to you several times in this topic alone. Are you seriously claiming not to have read the replies to your posts?

It did explain quite a bit that that US of course have to be READY to fight and win multiple wars. But the wording in report seems to support war mongering. That the US HAVE to take initiative to seem strong in the eyes of its people and its allies.

So, other than your subjective interpretation of cherry picked sentences in a 90 page document, could you share some of that "evidence" you claim to have?

 

[Mudcat]

I hate to interrupt but the topic of this thread isn't to discus particular conspiracy theories but to discus the motivations of people who espouse them. So kblood, since you're here and participating, do you want to discuse that? What motivates you, exactly?

 

[kblood]

To save time, please allow me to dumb down the PNAC bullet points for you:

• defend the American homeland = obviously, defend the US.
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars = E.G. fight Germany and Japan on a two front war.
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions = E.G. our continued support of the DMZ between North and South Korea.
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;” = Upgrading and modernizing US forces.


Do you think nations plan on fighting and losing wars?



It's been explained to you several times in this topic alone. Are you seriously claiming not to have read the replies to your posts?


So, other than your subjective interpretation of cherry picked sentences in a 90 page document, could you share some of that "evidence" you claim to have?

I read the replies, but apparantly we understand the sentences differently.

• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars
Should have been, GOAL:
• a military ready to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars

Then I would agree with you that it was about having learned a lesson from WW2 alone, and not needing to win more wars for the US to rebuild its defenses bot physically and in the minds of the people of the world.

When exactly did the "new pearl harbor" sentence get debunked? All I have read was the fact that you and some others do not think much of it, in your own opinions. That does not exactly remove my suspicion.

I hate to interrupt but the topic of this thread isn't to discus particular conspiracy theories but to discus the motivations of people who espouse them. So kblood, since you're here and participating, do you want to discuse that? What motivates you, exactly?

That is true, sorry. What motivates me is like many others, 9/11 for one, and how it raises too much suspicion to be ignored. After learning about things like the Georgia Stones and PNAC, I got even more driven.

Books like "Confessions of a Economic Hitman" also makes me think something more is going on. Especially after Karen Hudes has stepped forward supporting some of his claims with a pretty informative website.

Mainly to me, what drives me is wanting to know the truth about all this. And it makes me wonder why so many seems to dismiss the clues so easily. Stories from many former FBI and CIA also talks about major corruption going on behind the scenes, and there are CTs talking about how its all connected. And how the US needs a public enemy to keep the US strong. My suspicion is that PNAC is about finding the next big enemy, since the Cold War has left the US military stale, even though there might be several enemies in the Middle East to worry about. Which is not wrong by itself, but the time after the report has happened, makes me wonder if the US would not go as far as to create false flag wars. There are videos of US government officials speaking about how short a step it would be to make something seem more dangerous than it is, just to start the war needed to overthrow another country's government.

To me, that just about sums up why I do not mind being called a CT. To me, being a CT is being a critical thinker and the fact that it was ever put in a negative light is just foolish as I see it. There might be many mislead CTs, but thats does not make all of them wrong. The words themselves does not automatically equal that we are wrong about our theories.

As I see it, not wanting to be called a CT or thought of as a CT, makes many go out of their way not to see the evidence.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

To me, being a CT is being a critical thinker

 

[Joey McGee]

As I see it, not wanting to be called a CT or thought of as a CT, makes many go out of their way not to see the evidence.

The way I see it, the fear of being thought of as an idiot is a healthy fear. It causes us to work harder to make sure we are in the right before we risk our reputations. A lack of this fear is certainly why many people are willing to entertain any cockamamie theory that fits their personal insecurities about an unpredictable world and authority figures.

 

[kblood]

The way I see it, the fear of being thought of as an idiot is a healthy fear. It causes us to work harder to make sure we are in the right before we risk our reputations. A lack of this fear is certainly why many people are willing to entertain any cockamamie theory that fits their personal insecurities about an unpredictable world and authority figures.

CTs I know are not speaking about an unpredictable world. More like a world that is unfortunately predictable in bad ways very often.

And the fear I am speaking of is one that makes people shut up altogether, and never bother to do the research.

Conspiracies do happen, and they would never be discovered if no one takes the chance of becoming a conspiracy theorist, who after years of work might be proven right.
http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/

This article starts out underlining the fact that many conspiracy theories do come from crackpot ideas, but then goes on showing 10 theories that got proven. Here is an example about COINTELPRO:

Theory: The FBI Sought to Neutralize Civil Rights Activists

The FBI referred to this as COINTELPRO, or Counter Intelligence Programs, specifically those targeted at activists of almost any organization from 1956 to 1971. During those years of turmoil, Martin Luther King was the primary spokesperson for civil rights in America, and the FBI considered him and his movement equivalent to the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, the NAACP, the Congress for Racial Equality, and dozens of others all striving to attain equal rights for all races. COINTELPRO referred to all of these groups and movements as “black hate groups,” even the American Indian Movement, and spent 85% of its money on attempts to subvert them; the remaining 15% it spent on the subversion of “white hate groups” like the KKK.

It is highly possible, albeit very unlikely, that the FBI in some way coerced James Earl Ray into killing Martin Luther King, or simply did the job themselves and pinned it on Ray. King’s family concluded in 1998 that Ray had nothing at all to do with the assassination.

All these domestic political organizations and movements, as the FBI labeled them, were deemed threats to national security. If he had done his thing in America in the 20th Century, it is probable that the FBI would have considered Jesus guilty of the same kind of sedition. In general, COINTELPRO targeted the entire left wing of political thought; anyone liberal was seen as a danger to American society and slandered in print, sued or threatened with imprisonment, imprisoned, and illegally wiretapped.

What may well be the FBI’s most shocking atrocity occurred on 4 December 1969, when the home of Fred Hampton, a Black Panther Party officer, was invaded by the Chicago Police, who used deadly force against him and Mark Clark. Clark was shot first, and Hampton was unable to wake to the sound of gunfire because FBI agent William O’Neal had infiltrated their organization and spiked Hampton’s supper with barbiturates. The police shot him to death while he slept unarmed in bed.

 

[BStrong]

I hate to interrupt but the topic of this thread isn't to discus particular conspiracy theories but to discus the motivations of people who espouse them. So kblood, since you're here and participating, do you want to discuse that? What motivates you, exactly?

You're correct, but I believe that we may be on the receiving end of a demonstration of CT thought and motivations.

I think a good bit of it is "Hey! look at me!."

 

[Mudcat]

CTs I know are not speaking about an unpredictable world. More like a world that is unfortunately predictable in bad ways very often.

More like the people promoting conspiracy theories are looking at an unpredictable, chaotic, and strange world and anthropologizing it, using pseudoscientific terms to fill in the gaps. How is this any different than Stone Age shepherds assigning natural disasters a supernatural cause such as a deity?

 

[Joey McGee]

CTs I know are not speaking about an unpredictable world. More like a world that is unfortunately predictable in bad ways very often.

But they're wrong. And the evidence points to a failure in pattern seeking, which usually stems from accepting fundamentally flawed beliefs about the world and events within it, which usually comes from highly charged emotional states of insecurity, which comes from the unpredictable and infinitely complex world, which caused us to evolve a brain that prefers a conspiracy theory to no theory at all for the sake of having a direction. That is why conspiracy theories are pernicious. That is why they are strengthened beyond any hope of rational recovery because the mind evolved to stick with the strongest neural network structures, not the most rational. I think there are ways to overcome this and influence your friends out of it sometimes though.

And the fear I am speaking of is one that makes people shut up altogether, and never bother to do the research.

There's nothing wrong with that... if you're not confident enough in something to take the heat for it, then it's probably not important enough or you just know deep down you don't know what the hell is going on anyway. Why do you care what cowards do with information presented to them? They probably can't even get their lives straight let alone take on the New World Order... what are you talking about? Is this like a religious persecution fantasy?

Conspiracies do happen, and they would never be discovered if no one takes the chance of becoming a conspiracy theorist, who after years of work might be proven right.
http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/

This article starts out underlining the fact that many conspiracy theories do come from crackpot ideas, but then goes on showing 10 theories that got proven. Here is an example about COINTELPRO:

This is some of the stupidest crap I have read in awhile, thanks. First of all, just because King's family doesn't believe Ray's guilty, doesn't prove he isn't. They're highly motivated and biased against the government for ****'s sake.

Then I go to #1, and it's a plain old *********** conspiracy theory! The Senator found out about the gun because he's a US Senator, OK, no one should be shocked that the American government knows how to induce heart attacks with poison that's basic! What the hell! And then it moves on to speculate on two people's death with no evidence! They just can't help themselves! Number 1? Good grief! Breibert had an enlarged heart and it says he was in good health, wtf? he had a heart attack months before and knew all about it himself... Thanks for the laughs!

 

[Robrob]

Conspiracies do happen, and they would never be discovered if no one takes the chance of becoming a conspiracy theorist, who after years of work might be proven right.
http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-n...s-proven-true/

This article starts out underlining the fact that many conspiracy theories do come from crackpot ideas, but then goes on showing 10 theories that got proven. Here is an example about COINTELPRO:

Wow, what a load of crap!

Theory: The FBI Poisoned Alcohol during Prohibition - Or, as a normal person might say "The FBI attempted to render medical alcohol non-potable."

Theory: The Incident in the Gulf of Tonkin Is Only Half True - Or, as a normal person might say "The Incident in the Gulf of Tonkin is Half Correct."

Theory: The Fascist Plot to Overthrow the U. S. Government - The article debunks itself! "(I)t never left square one."

Theory: The CIA Had Nayirah al-Sabah Bear False Witness Yet the article actually describes a witness perjuring herself for personal reasons, not because the CIA made her do it. Not to mention it completely exaggerates the importance of this single "witness" testimony. "It was Nayirah’s testimony that provided the largest part of the foundation for American public opinion in favor of military force against Iraq."

I recall something about WMD, al-Qaeda and 9/11 being pitched but not so much about Nayirah al-Sabah.

Etc...

 

[SpitfireIX]

Theory: The CIA Had Nayirah al-Sabah Bear False Witness Yet the article actually describes a witness perjuring herself for personal reasons, not because the CIA made her do it. Not to mention it completely exaggerates the importance of this single "witness" testimony. "It was Nayirah’s testimony that provided the largest part of the foundation for American public opinion in favor of military force against Iraq."

I recall something about WMD, al-Qaeda and 9/11 being pitched but not so much about Nayirah al-Sabah.

This is actually related to the first Persian Gulf War. See here. However, there is still no evidence that the CIA pressured her to lie, or indeed that she even was deliberately untruthful.