Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DO DUers OBSESS WITH A NEED FOR CONSPIRACIES (hey them's not my

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:07 PM
Original message
DO DUers OBSESS WITH A NEED FOR CONSPIRACIES (hey them's not my
words. NOW you can DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

FINALLY somebody came up with the links to the original DUers "obsessions with the need for conspiracy" for the person who put up the original poll ). Too bad the pollster didn't have the temerity to answer for themselves. They remain silent.

But thank you to the person who did. NOW PEOPLE CAN READ THE ORIGINAL POSTS FOR THEMSELVES.


Now the first scenario in the poll was:

"The tragic mistakes in West Virginia were actually an attempt by the Bush administration to disparage East Coast media outlets?

Your first link to the post corresponding to the first scenario in the poll asked the question:

Is it possible that the story of the 12 live miners was purposely planted just in time for the East Coast newspapers to run it on their front pages?. Personally, I think someone should be able to ask a question without being characterized (denigrated?) as having an obsessive need for conspiracy theories. Also, this post asks whether of not the story was "planted" so as to draw attention away from otherwise bad publicity (for the Repubs) coming out at that time.


NOte nothing was said in the poll scenario about the story being "planted" as it was
stated in the post's QUESTION: "Is it possible that the story of the 12 live miners was purposely planted...?". Does this seem like a significant abridgement to you?


Now how about the second "obsession with the need for conspiracy"(whatever that is supposed to mean) as characterized in the poll:

The polls wording of the second scenario supposedly presented by this post is: "The fact that some of the 9/11 Hijackers took a gambling cruise on Jack Abramoff's ill gotten boat is proof positive that Bush knew that the attacks were coming.

your second link:

Abramoff, SunCruz, M.Atta, 9/11, FBI.....

Again the text in this post is a QUESTION:

"any teeth in the story that M.Atta and some other 9/11 terrorists showed up on a SunCruz casino boat in FLA sometime before 9/11 and that the FBI confiscated the tapes of them on the boat? I heard this from somebody over the weekend. Any details? Any basis to believe this?"


This doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me. It sounds like aquestion to me. Can't a person ask a question? Does he have to have it reviewed by a board which determines that the question is worthy of being heard? Also, note there is no claim that this circumstance, if it indeed happened means that this is "proof positive that Bush knew that the attacks were coming."

I think perhaps the pollster, who prefers to remain silent, was taking a question and running wild with an answer without even investigating the question. Questions are NOT answers nor are they accusations. At least, not the last time I checked. They MAY be the beginning and a basis for further investigations but not unless if you are allowed to check them out. A question is not a completed case.

Your third link: Why were Atta and 9/11 muslim hijackers on Abramoff's casino boat? is to post which refers to an article published on Madcowprod.com entitled: The Secret World of Jack Abramoff:Terrorists, Torpedos and Republican Muscle.

The post text is:
"Hmm, Muslim hijackers who partied it up with a stripper and cocaine, liked pork chops (see http://tinyurl.com/dkxv3 ), went to a bar the night before they were going to meet Allah , and, as if that wasn't enough, we now find out some of them also went out for "tours to nowhere" on casino boats, and not just any old casino boat, but one owned by lobbyist du jour Jack Abramoff. Why it is almost enough to make a person a conspiracy theorist."


I interpret these words as meaning this is suspicious stuff but I still do not equate this to a statement that this is "proof positive that Bush knew that the attacks were coming.".

He refers to an article published on madcowprod.com:

"The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.

So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.

One of the most amazing things about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html


The article seems to say this is suspicious stuff but I still do not equate this to an assertion that this is "proof positive that Bush knew that the attacks were coming.".

ONce again you don't need prof of something to ask a questons meerly suspicious cercumstances. The proof if any is to be had, must come after questions are asked and an investigation pursued.

So conspiracy theories, obsession with a need for conspiracy (whatever that assortment of words means) or merely asking questions. I think it's better to see the actual "raw data" and decide for yourself, don't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
...of J.Temperance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't go for any of the Conspiracy Theories, but you already posted
Something like this last week. So do we need another post like this so soon after?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Michelle Malkin, is that you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. LOL...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Acryliccalico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think we have the presence of mind to
assess all the possibilities of any given circumstance. Shows imagination and richness in thought. A compliment as far as I am concerned. The only way to get to the bottom of anything. Called
(brainstorming) :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oversea Visitor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. DUer
Always question, looks at different angles, call it theories.
But how did we human discover so many stuff without a theory.
A possible fact but yet no back up yet and is a theory until proven.

So putting conspiracy in front is just a spin to prevent questing mind from digging for answers, to make them look like loonies, call me one I dont mind.

But hey too many thing unanswer.
Need questing minds so all you Conspiracy Theorist keep on digging for answer me with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Is Tom DeLay a DUer? He is shouting conspiracy, conspiracy
as his defense for his crimes.

Damn, I wonder what screen name he uses. :freak:


:tinfoilhat:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think if you look at common features of conspiracy theories...
Edited on Mon Jan-09-06 08:25 PM by LoZoccolo
...you'll find that they probably satisfy some people psychologically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. The raw data shows an intense grab for power at all cost. And decisions
made to give the power (choices) to a very narrow part of the electorate. That is the open pattern. So if people look for motives - they are looking for motives. Motives of people who have repeatedly shown a pattern of wanting power to impose their own agenda.

As to gambling boats and who spread the rumour of the minors being safe - well there are just as logical explanations of why those things happened. So you go with the actual, factual explanation. The pattern shows that Atta or whoever was all over the place, in Florida and with money, and under stress (knowing he was going to die - strip clubs and bars were also frequented by the freak - even though no woman was aloud to touch his body at death (or a pregnant one) and alcohol is an abomination to an extremist fundy islamic. So go with what seems the most logical.

But conspiracy theory doesn't apply to the wonder and amazement at the amount of media manipulation by the noise machine - some overt, some not so much. And it isn't a conspiracy theory to wonder what is up the sleeve on the agenda of neocons and the GOP. These are well established patterns.

Being mistrustful of well established repeated patterns of lying or myth is not a conspiracy. Only when there is ample proof of the conspiracy not being true, and the person still believes that certain things happened with no proof - then it is a conspiracy theory. And only when it has been misproven.

Being mistrustful is in fact being discerning - where it is warranted. By a repeated pattern of lies and two faces.

Obsession with a need for conspiracies? A new sentence to that means nothing. Americans are getting more discerning. So naturally this discernment would be attacked. And name called.

Abramoff, neocons to war, Delay, Plame, election games and not reading the spirit of the laws, are obvious examples that force people to not be so naive. Takes a while to live in that world. All humans have delusions - happier humans have more delusions, depressed people less. Nefarious try and use those delusions to create wedges and strife between politically important tribes - and you catch it. You get it. Then you have to learn all over again how the world works. Cause it certainly is not such a sunny place when your values and belief system is being attacked. It takes some time. You may make mistakes. But you get more and more discerning.

Question isn't why the obvious conspiracy theories on 9/11 or Atta on a cruise ship owned by a repuke (who else owns a casino unless they are desperate for economic development) or whatever. The question is why is such emotional strife so important to the Bush administration? Why the psychological push to smash lives and beliefs. Why the attack? And then the name calling after people have adjusted to the attack.

And how do we stop them? Well - we are.

It seems to be working. Discernment. Taking everything with a grain of salt. I don't think neocons or GOP expected people to get with the real reality and fight - instead of sitting back passively and "watching everything that they do and taking notes in some sort of awe".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. Also, conspiracy theorists play this game...
...where they start off asking questions, then start acting as if the questions have already been answered. But if you disparage conspiracy theories, they'll accuse you of asking them to stop speculating or asking questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm no longer suspicious about Project Northwoods, The single
bullet theory, Iran Contra, The overthrow of Allende, The School of the Americas, The wargames simulating hijacked airliners on 911, the nobid contracts in Iraq, the billions missing in Iraq, the trillions the Pentagon cannot account for, microwave weapons, MK Ultra, Jeb signing executive order 01-261 in essence preparing for martial law days before 911, Pearl Harbor, CIA cocaine trafficking, or the X-Files. Did I miss something??


"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

www.brusselstribunal.org <----- Conspiracy theorists.... oh yeah......

To establish its findings and shape its report the Commission heard testimony from specialists on international affairs and witnesses knowledgeable about the current conditions in Iraq. The Commission also relied on PNAC’s reports and official US government documents, as well as written analyses (*). The Commission came to the following conclusions:

First. The PNAC program consists of three main components:
to establish US hegemony in the new century, relying primarily on military and technological superiority; to prevent the emergence of any competing global or regional powers by imposing what is sometimes termed a “Pax Americana”; to exercise pre-emptive action against all perceived threats to American “interests” and security.

Second. A significant number of signatories to PNAC’s 1997 founding Statement of Principles” became senior members of the current US administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The adoption of those principles by this administration is evidenced by official White House documents such as “The National Security Strategy” of September 2002. These principles have been put into action through the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Third. According to a clear majority of States and a large consensus of legal experts, the invasion of Iraq constitutes an act of aggression, a breach of one of the most fundamental norms of the international legal order. This demonstrates that the implementation of policies emanating from PNAC and endorsed by the current administration runs counter to the principles of the UN Charter and undermines the United Nations itself, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Fourth. The invasion of Iraq has resulted in more than 10.000 civilian deaths. With each passing day of occupation, the number of victims grows, as do the gross violations of humanitarian law and human rights, such as arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and deprivation in regard to basic needs. The situation of the Iraqi people has clearly deteriorated and the promises of democracy and freedom have proved to be illusory. The constant use of the words “democracy”, “freedom” and “human rights” in such a context amounts to a complete perversion of those terms.

Fifth. Far from bringing stability and peace in Iraq and the region, the invasion and occupation have created instability and chaos. Moreover, the deliberate destruction of Iraq has effectively promoted the Israeli government’s policies of further unlawful expansion and de facto annexation of territories as well as further annihilation of the rights of the Palestinian people. The Tribunal noted that PNAC itself called explicitly in 2002 for the US administration to align itself with the views of the Israeli government. These developments increase hostility between the peoples of the region and the West, contrary to the proclaimed objectives of making the world a safer place.

Sixth. There is evidence of a consistent US strategy, as envisioned by the PNAC report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, to establish global domination by military means. Contrary to claims that this domination would be a “benevolent hegemony”, it is more likely to lead to a state of permanent war. PNAC policies are based on brutal unilateralism and disregard for legality. As such, the ideas of PNAC constitute an intellectual crime. The war in Iraq is only one element of a global agenda which is linked with logics of the dominant economic system, inspired by neo-conservative ideology and supported by religious fundamentalism.

Seventh. Due to the growing resistance encountered by the occupying powers in Iraq and other unanticipated difficulties, the United States and United Kingdom have made cynical requests for the involvement of the United Nations in Iraq, thereby pre-empting the sovereign rights of the Iraqi people to determine their future. The United Nations should avoid complicity with -- let alone legitimise in any way -- the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any such action would further discredit this world body. The UN should restore its legitimacy through ensuring the complete withdrawal of all occupying forces and assisting the Iraqi people in recovering their full sovereignty. Any involvement of the European Union or of NATO to help the occupying powers should be refused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. if PNAC were so smart
how come they screwed up so royally anyway.

They probably still get together for groupthink sessions where they go into a huddle click their heels together and wish they were back in Kansas.

Criminally incompetent fantasists. Do they think that a widening conflict remains 'winnable'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. It's enough to scare the hair right off your head I tell ya..... :) nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. You're right, that was an incredibly misleading OP in that thread.
I couldn't believe so many people actually responded to it. It was simply dishonest, as you have shown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's obvious that Perky not only twisted my words in his poll
He also twisted the words of Global1's post.

I rather be a conspiracy theorist than a manipulator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC