Conspiracies

[palo5]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

Cuba and Iran.

Iran is another eye-catching example. When you see documentaries and pics of the Iran-Iraq War, a lot of the Iranian hardware is modern Western (US & British), and Iraqi hardware is Soviet. So if you'd been asleep in 1979, you'd think the US was backing Iran. But you'd be wrong - they were backing Saddam

[Cheekymonkey]

It is funny how someone considered a "conspiracy theorist" is derided as a bit of a nutjob. The definition of conspiracy is "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."
If nothing is ever conspiratorial in nature it means that never in human history have two or more people ever gotten together in a room and decide to do something evil"! And in government? God forbid!

Look up Operation Northwoods or as far back as Hitler's Reichstag fire, which may have laid the blueprint for many other "false flags" to follow.

Today the news, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and former Senior Investigative Judge Ferdinando Imposimato (the man who prosecuted the case involving the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II) accused the Bilderberg Group of being behind terrorist attacks in Europe.
The very existence of The Bilderberg Group (already discussed in this thread) is denied by the mainstream media, despite several a attendees incl. Blair and Kissinger on camera admitting it and being filmed entering the event, is a favorite to be dismissed as 'conspiracy theory'.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by Cheekymonkey

It is funny how someone considered a "conspiracy theorist" is derided as a bit of a nutjob. The definition of conspiracy is "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."
If nothing is ever conspiratorial in nature it means that never in human history have two or more people ever gotten together in a room and decide to do something evil"! And in government? God forbid!

The fact that the word "conspiracy" exists, and is defined, has never been questioned as far as I'm aware, but the fact that conspiracies do happen doesn't make any specific conspiracy theory more credible.

The words "complete" and "nonsense" also exist and are defined, but that doesn't prove anything either!

All to often, the obvious existence of conspiracies in the widest sense is put forward as some sort of "evidence" that a particular event must involve a conspiracy. So, you get sweeping statements to the effect that "governments murder people", so such-and-such an unexplained death must have been the government ... or "when people plan bad things, they meet in secret", so any secret meeting must involve people planning bad things. That's not evidence!

Speaking of sweeping statements, the claim that "someone considered a "conspiracy theorist" is derided as a bit of a nutjob" is somewhat of a generalisation. I could, of course, counter by claiming that anyone who doesn't believe a particular "conspiracy theory" is derided as being gullible and naive, but that would be somewhat of a generalisation too!

Originally Posted by Cheekymonkey

Look up Operation Northwoods or as far back as Hitler's Reichstag fire, which may have laid the blueprint for many other "false flags" to follow.

... or it may not.

Originally Posted by Cheekymonkey

The very existence of The Bilderberg Group (already discussed in this thread) is denied by the mainstream media, despite several a attendees incl. Blair and Kissinger on camera admitting it and being filmed entering the event, is a favorite to be dismissed as 'conspiracy theory'.

Assuming the BBC counts as "mainstream media", a quick search on the BBC website absolutely disproves the claim that the very existence of the Bilderberg Group is denied! In the BBC news section alone, there were 14 references to it! It isn't a secret! The locations and attendees are listed. They have their own website!!!

So, various political figures attend meetings that are publicised in advance. Great! Where's the conspiracy?

[redstone44]

Originally Posted by squigg58

So, various political figures attend meetings that are publicised in advance. Great! Where's the conspiracy?

It is about what they are discussing which should transparent and public and its not. so what are they discussing about that's what I wanna know. nobody of these meetings talks about what they discuss there/here.. and its the top of the top which attend these meetings , queen of the Netherlands , big multinationals CEO's with more income then some countries (BPM) , etc etc ...

that's I think the conspiracy mentioned

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by squigg58

So, various political figures attend meetings that are publicised in advance. Great! Where's the conspiracy?

As long as the content of these meetings isn't made public, and thus not subjected to parliamentary control, it remains undemocratic. You can twist and turn as you like.

May i ask a question ? What's wrong with using parliament ?

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by redstone44

It is about what they are discussing which should transparent and public and its not. so what are they discuss about that what I wanna know. nobody of these meetings talks about they discuss there.. and its the top of the top which attend , queen of the Netherlands , big multinationals CEO's with more income then some countries (BPM) , etc etc ...

that's I think the conspiracy mentioned

The agenda is published, along with the list of attendees.

However, let's say we don't know what's discussed. What does that prove? All it proves is that we don't know what's discussed!

This actually goes back to one of my previous comments about sweeping statements. All too often "I don't know" is taken to mean "it must be a conspiracy" which is torturing logic until it screams for mercy!

I don't know what goes on in the ICI boardroom. I don't know what goes on in Defence meetings. I don't know what goes on in my local Round Table meetings. So what?

I'm now going to generalise, but with some people there seems to be a degree of paranoia associated with them not knowing something. "Oooh. It must be bad!" That's then touted around as "evidence" of a conspiracy. It's not evidence at all! It's just an opportunity for people to let their imaginations run wild and come up with a load of scare stories!

"Do you know what lives under the stairs?"
"No!"
"It's a bogey-man!"

Maybe the Bilderburg Group sit around getting pissed and telling rude jokes!

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

As long as the content of these meetings isn't made public, and thus not subjected to parliamentary control, it remains undemocratic. You can twist and turn as you like.

May i ask a question ? What's wrong with using parliament ?

On what basis do you assume they're making parliamentary decisions?

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by squigg58

On what basis do you assume they're making parliamentary decisions?

You dodged the question.

(Nice try. )

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

May i ask a question ? What's wrong with using parliament ?

I don't know. I don't even know if the question has any relevance because I don't know exactly what they discuss.

On what basis do you assume they're making parliamentary decisions?

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by squigg58

On what basis do you assume they're making parliamentary decisions?

Because I'm a citizen and some of our MPs are involved. They are to 100 % accountable to the public because they hold a public office. They have a democratic mandate.