Conspiracy Theories

[widebody911]

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

Interesting reading. It collates a lot of the bits and pieces I've read elsewhere into one tapestry of conspiracy.

I'm sitting here with a stopwatch, wating to hear the NeoCons braying in denial.

[rcecale]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

You gotta be kidding me!!!

From the article...
In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert. Why weren't they in the "Situation Room?" Don't any of them ever watch "West Wing?"

Randy

[VenezianBlau 87]

Wow, the rich and powerful run the country. That's news.
Add some circumstantial occurrences and nutty theories to make it sensational. Please post some pictures of his tinfoil helmet designed to jam the homing beacons of black helicopters.

Nuts:

More disturbing by far are the many eerie parallels between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush:

A conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers' rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient "terrorist" attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties. A carefully manufactured image of "The Leader," who's still just a "regular guy" and a "moderate." "Freedom" as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending.

and, Fruit:

Michael Hasty is a writer, activist, musician, carpenter and farmer. His award-winning column, "Thinking Locally," appeared for seven years in the Hampshire Review, West Virginia's oldest newspaper. His writing has also appeared in the Highlands Voice, the Washington Peace Letter, the Takoma Park Newsletter, the German magazine Generational Justice, and the Washington Post; and at the websites Common Dreams and Democrats.com. In January 1989, he was the media spokesperson for the counter-inaugural coalition at George Bush's Counter-Inaugural Banquet, which fed hundreds of DC's homeless in front of Union Station, where the official inaugural dinner was being held.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by rcecale
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

You gotta be kidding me!!!

From the article...
In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert...

[/B]

They were just following the lead of the President.

[widebody911]

Why is the truth stranger than fiction?

Fiction has to make sense...

[Moneyguy1]

Wide...Who said that? I read that somewhere.......

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Wide...Who said that? I read that somewhere.......

I did a google search on it, and it seems to be all over the place, with the bulk of the attribution to Mark Twain; then again, a lot of stuff is mis-attributed to him.

[911pcars]

To categorically dismiss all that was in this article shows me that you are all smarter than I gave you credit for or in a state of denial that any of this is indeed possible if not factual.

Sherwood

[350HP930]

There is an old saying . . .

"Paranoia is a heightened state of awareness"

[Moneyguy1]

Paranoia can also lead to an inability to act rationally........

I keep thinking of the Mel Gibson movie: "Conspiracy Theory"

or any episode of "X Files"

"Be afraid.........Be VERY afraid......"

[Overpaid Slacker]

I'm sitting here with a stopwatch, wating to hear the NeoCons braying in denial.

So any contrary point is "braying", huh? ... but it's the right that is closed-minded and is intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Hmm.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

JP

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
So any contrary point is "braying", huh? ... but it's the right that is closed-minded and is intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Hmm.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

JP

How many posts from the 'right' categorize 40.000.000 Democrats as 'rats,' 'scum,' 'liars' etc. Do those posts bother you, too? Or just the ones that characterize actions of the right as lacking content?

[Overpaid Slacker]

tech -
Those particular labels do bother me; I doubt you could find instances where I'm using them in such broad strokes. "Foolish" perhaps, "ideologues" maybe (tho' the left has got no monopoly on that) ... "susceptible to deception by the media-whose-flagrant-agenda-they-vehementyl-deny" definitely.

JP

[cmccuist]

That article makes perfect sense to me. I wish I'd written it.

Sincerely,

Lyndon Larouche

[cmccuist]

Tech, this article violates one of my hard and fast rules - namely when a writer starts comparing someone to Hitler, he's lost all credibility. It's the most gutless, weakest argument out there. No one is like Hitler, not Saddam, Castro, Mao, Kim Jong Il - no one. Until someone starts a world war and gets his genocide going, everyone needs to avoid the Hitler comparisons.

I can understand arguing that someone uses propaganda, tries the Nazi tactics for rigging elections, plays the patriot card - these are all used by the left and the right, but these hacks need to back away from the Das Fuhrer comparisons. It's lazy and insulting.

[350HP930]

So when the next hitler is in the making how is one to make comparisons?

I think the belief that 'you can not compare people to hitler' is just a convenient way to avoid seeing when history is repeating itself.

I happen to think it is except this time around anti-arab paranoia has replaced anti-semitism and bush is the 21st century's fascist puppet who is engaging in world conquest at the bequest of his backers just as hitler did almost 60 years earlier.

While nazi germany cranked up WWII by invading and occupying poland and france we now have bushist america invading and occupying afghanistan and iraq.

I think its only insulting to those who are supporting the wrong side in the battle for world supremacy.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by cmccuist
Tech, this article violates one of my hard and fast rules - namely when a writer starts comparing someone to Hitler, he's lost all credibility.

So when Mul calls Hillary Clinton 'Hitlery' he discredits everything else he says?

Works for me.

BTW: where did you get the idea I posted an article comparing anyone to Hitler?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
tech -
Those particular labels do bother me; I doubt you could find instances where I'm using them in such broad strokes. "Foolish" perhaps, "ideologues" maybe (tho' the left has got no monopoly on that) ... "susceptible to deception by the media-whose-flagrant-agenda-they-vehementyl-deny" definitely.

JP

I have no problem with anyone describing the actions/opinions/expressions of somebody as foolish/disingenuous/lies/whatever. When (others) on this board make blanket ad hominem attacks on democrats & liberals, I dont' see any complaints from the right.

The above reference to Hillary Clinton as 'Hiltery' is a perfect example. silence from the 'more reasonable' right. Apparently, it's a Code of Silence. No matter how outrageous the statement. By contrast, I have criticized posters on the left.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of intellectual integrity from the 'Right.'

[cmccuist]

There will never be (never say never) another set of circumstances in place where a man will be able to conquer countries as Hitler did. Bush is not conquering countries, rather he is spreading democracy. Lefties - start rolling your eyes!!!!

He is not delivering 3 hour speeches about how we have to rid the world of the 1 billion followers of Islam. He is not systematically setting up concentration camps and packing them full of worshippers of Mohammed (Guantonimo is not Bergen-Belson, Buchenwald, Aushwitz-Birkenau, etc. regardless of what the ACLU and Amnesty International say). He is not rolling into countries on the flimsiest of reasons (UN resolutions were obtained and Congress voted).

Just because a man has Hitler-like traits (Bush absolutely does not) doesn't give sane thinking people reasons for comparisons. To even suggest that the US is anything like the Nazis is cause for discounting that person's argument as null and void.

Terrorism has come to the US. Ridding the world of terrorism is a dilemma of Gordian knot proportions. Bush has proposed solutions - messy ones and executed with varying degrees of success - and for his troubles he is compared with Hitler!?!?

When Clinton launched million dollar Tomahawks at the Sudan (nice country now engaged in their own genocide) I didn't think to myself "that guy's taking over the world! Just like Hilter."

It's intellectually dishonest and unworthy as the basis of a rational discussion.

[350HP930]

Cmccuist , you really need to brush up on your history.

Hitler was not a one man operation and the nazis sold their aggression with fabricated claims of self defense against terrorists and the nations they claimed were out to get them.

While the nazis were busy terrorizing their own people to justify an expansionist war it was all sold as self defense and bringing their superior way of life to the rest of the world via force.

Sounds like a rather familiar program to me.