Conspiracies are just an excuse for those that do not want to favor the truth. Example: Pearl Harbor attacks in WW2 - did FDR know about it? And who struck first? The US or the Japs? Well, the later 2 questions aren't really conspiracies, but I threw them in FYI: The Americans struck first. The U.S.S. Ward sunk a Japanese Midget Submarine just minutes before the first bomb was dropped in Hawaii. Anyway, people want to lay claim that FDR let the attack happen so we could get a good excuse to go to war. No evidence has been found that supports this claim, and the idea is preposterous. Yet, at other times, when the theorists can't support their OWN claims, isn't interesting that these same conspiracy theorists only want solid proof or even evidence to support ideas that the GOOD GUYS like? Interesting. It seems these conspirators want to think what they do for some unknown reason other than to be ignorant, and base it all on superstition/suspicion/"facts" because if something can be described one way, it CAN'T another! Example 2: The United States basically supported the 9/11 attacks. TRUE! Bill Clinton let it happen when Al Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1997. He did nothing about it, and brushed off the threat. Now, directly with the specific attacks against us on September 11? No. So I wonder, why do theorists LOVE for the GOOD GUYS like us to bring up proof/solid evidence to even try to convince their blatant, ignorant minds, and yet they only go off of superstition/suspicion themselves? Why are they so ignorant? Why will they not understand? They want to deny the truth because they support the BAD GUYS. Here's the link: We are at war against terrorists. This is a war of the security of the world against people who's mission is to kill everybody else. Who's evil? Those in defense of the security of the world or those attacking it for no reason other than "to die for Allah" or to persuade to convert or something? If you say the former is evil, then you support the bad guys: the terrorists, and might as well move to the middle east to join the Taliban. If you say the latter is evil, then you must think that the people trying to destroy them are the GOOD guys. And yet... we can't seem to drill this into your head. For some reason, you think that BOTH are the evil ones. Oh really? So where is the good? If there is no good, there can be no evil. And yet, saying there is no good would be void in and of itself because evil would not be there to compare/contrast it to. And thus, the opposites would not exist. The conceptual opposites of Good and Evil are unanimous throughout modern mankind. Through simple logic, if one does not exist, then the other cannot also. Anybody who thinks that: A) There is no good; everybody is evil or B) We are evil, they are good or C) Everybody's good have some serious problems. Please get checked out by a professional before replying if so Thank you, .chulium.
I agree with your assessment of who is evil but what you have to realise is that people who are prepared to "die for Allah" absolutely believe that The West signifies the bad guys. It's all down to your personal beliefs and upbringing I guess - one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter and vice versa.
That would be a good argument, except I brought in the moral aspect (errr... I guess I should have highlighted it more, than just in the poll mainly) - which tells us that killing somebody unarmed is generally wrong and even evil. To kill innocent people on mass scale is DEFINITELY evil. That is what basic human morals tell us.
Can't say I've ever seen islamic terrorists bringing or offering "freedom." Usually just death and destruction.
This is me after reading another conspiracy thread and having just stabbed myself in the head because of it. Why are you taking these people seriously at all?
Thats what former congresswoman cynthia m from georgia was famous for...she was a conspiracy theory nutjob...I'm glad shes gone from office.
I agree with all of you. jfk was really killed by oswald. This is why our government is locking away all evidence vfrom the second investigation until the year 2029. Maybe its because our government is also sick of conspiracy theorists right?
Yeah these conspiracy theorists are all kooks. How dare anyone question what comes from the Government and the mainstream media, they would never lie to the people.
I think there is a difference in lying, and making up something that is obviously not correct...example: "A missile hit the pentagon instead of an airplane." We have the video evidence that a plane hit, but people still think the govt. blew up their own building.
Type in define:conspiracy in google and you will find out that a conspiracy requires more people than just one. In this case, we can call the situation a lie or a memory-problem.
Check this out. This is only hypothetically speaking because we all know that the prez doesnt really make any decisions anymore. We get clinton because he lied under oath about an affair and bush gets us into a lie of a war and most of u anti clintonians dont say a thing about it. This is called being blinded to the truth thats staring u in the face. Please dont tell me that bs about the president being held to a moral standard because i will laugh lolololol. Who would u rather have , a president that lies under oath about an affair or a president that lies (not under oath) and gets us into a war that killed 3000+ american soldiers and countless tens of thousands of iraqis. Its called basic common sense Wow i just looked at the poll, very very very very very UNBIASED looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
When you get through laughing, what lie do you propose the President told? I asked before, but you never answered. General note: Repeating lies that have time and time been refuted with solid evidence, such as that offered by Lorien1973 where AGS ran from the truth/facts, is not questioning the government. I haven't seen any government questioning from AGS. Just aid and comfort to terrorists by giving their credit to others. When one repeatedly runs from the facts/truth that clearly discredits their belief, this is not questioning the government/media. This is delusion.
I do not agree with the above poll due to it's highly biased nature. Especially since two different factions of 'evil' can indeed be enemies and fighting each-other.
gtech the lie about wmd's. Cia also claimed they were pressured by the president to be very biased in their findings. Opps i meant say the presidents administration since we all know the prez position is a position of a figurehead. That psoition of power and importance was demolished when our president was liquidated in 1963 by public execution and our country decided to keep the vital info of this execution locked away from us until the year 2029. Thanks
*RaE* "We all know" there's no president? Interesting. I was not aware I possessed this... "knowledge"...
If I could prove your assertion false, would you accept it? Or would you continue to perpetuate it anyway? I guess what I'm asking is, do facts matter and if they do, would you accept them? Let's address these. The lie about WMDs. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 As demonstrated, democrats in office, long before Bush was ever running for President said the same thing. And they were right. How does one lie about WMD, if reports exist that some were looted and some were moved to syria and yet some were found? How could it be a lie? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 Let's turn to Bill Clinton and see what he has to say: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ Hmm, so Clinton knew about this long before Bush was ever in office. So, to assert that Bush lied about wmd (which isn't true), is to also assert that Bill Clinton and many of the top leadership in the democrat party also lied and passed on that intelligence to Bush. Does that make sense? Am I being unreasonable here? Honestly, think about it. If Bush lied, a whole lot of people lied long before he got into office. But to lie, one must know the truth in the first place. I've read reports that found there was no undue pressure on the CIA from the administration over intelligence. Information about the subject on wiki confirms this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq#Pressure_on_analysts So now that you have facts available that contradict your assertions, the question then becomes one of integrity. Do facts matter? Does the overwhelming presence of factual information make a difference, or does hatred of Bush override the truth?
Er, pardon gtech, but later in that quote, it says that either the investigation or the discussion about the pressure/use of intelligence question was postponed.