Zeitgeist, 9/11 Coincidences, 7/7 Ripple Effect, etc.

Remove all ads!

The Middle East has been a spiral of death for millennia. The only periods of peace where when a powerful fist crushed down any groups, like with under Saddam. It was somehow wrong to remove Saddam, how odd that may seem. Removing an oppressing tyrant can have more negative effects than positive and I think everyone sort of forgot that or ignored it by saying 'The world will suffer no evil.' I think that what is now waiting is a serious dilemma. If the US soldiers retreat, then the war will be fought on their home ground, because all these orphans and other people who lost their family will still hunt for revenge. Even worse, without an oppressive bastard like Saddam, the ethnic and religious groups will not be held back to commit a genocide. The Shi'a will pick up arms against the Sunni's, the Sunni's against the Shi'a and the Turks against the Kurds, the spiral of death will continue until there is only group left. This fighting is already happening, but now they're just skirmishes. I don't think the Iraqi government will even exist for a year when the Allied soldiers leave.

While the endless suffering in the ME would certainly explain why people take up their arms, strap up a jacket and try to walk up to a US soldier. It is of course not a justification.

Bin Laden is somehow different from these people. He is from a rich family. He went to university and got a degree. No one in his family died a horrible death at the hands of an American. But he is a devout Sunni Muslim. He also apparently thinks that it is justified to kill innocents since, hey, if they were good people, they would end up in Paradise anyway. Let Allah sort them out! That's what I call nuts.

 

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I think I understand what Drew and Tal are saying and I do have some thoughts on conspiracies.

Conspiracy theories can start for several different reasons; two are: (1) Someone truly questions the official findings and tries to find answers to his questions. (2) Malicious theories started to embarrass the government or others.

Conspiracy theories are frequently nothing but rumors started either from ignorance or intentionally malicious. Having been a victim of a nasty rumor I tend to want to know who, why, what, when, where and what are the facts? What proof do you have?

 

I would add a third reason: (3) Someone who likes to argue about silly things and take joy in "bucking" the norm and frustrating people who use logic and reason. I have a brother like this *sigh*

 

I'm glad to see the 'days silence' idea went well, and that we could put our differences aside for a moment.
Another thing we *might* all agree on, is this:
Always view news reports with a degree of heathy skepticism.
Naturally we disagree about when healthy skepticism turns into paranoia, but at least it can't hurt to be somewhat critical about the news, right?
Here's an example:
"Iraqi terrorists are now using children as suicide bombers."
This would give you the opinion that Iraqi's are despicable. Muslim terrorism is not mentioned, but implied and assumed. But if you think about the news report:
1) It could be entirely made up. Unlikely, but still possible.
2) It may be an exaggeration of a single story. Resulting in a far-too-harsh condemnation of the Iraqi people.
3) It is taken out of context. If the kid lost both his parents due to unjust US military action, this would be more like 'personal revenge' than 'highly organized muslim insurrection'. Making a bomb isn't too difficult, and maybe 'non-muslim-fanatic' friends helped him to get his revenge.
So, I hope we can all agree that it's a good idea to not believe everything we are told by the media. Taking things at face value is a mistake.
Mass-media is an excellent tool for governments to create (in)stability, and we don't really know how much control they have. If your reasoning is that you don't have the time to think about the news, then at least be sparing in your conclusions and opinions. That summarizes one of the most important messages i could hope to bring across.

@T2Bruno
The program you mentioned has completely fallen of the radar, which is unfair, as it's the most on-topic input on page 6 so far. Having not seen it myself, I can't offer any opinion. But I'll be looking on Discovery for it.

@Chick
You can question his choices in life, but I personally admire his honesty. Only people from protected backgrounds can claim to be morally clean, hood-rats just aren't. Since mostly the poor join the army to escape poverty, I'd say he's your average (G.I) Joe. And I don't think he consciously decided to raise a child on dealer-money. The pregnancy was probably unplanned, or the dealing started after the kid was born. Small drug-dealers aren't the pimps that rap-videos make them out to be. And it *seems* decent of him to quit dealing and join the army.

@Morgoth
I don't think that an 'orphanized' kid is justified to take out a random US soldier either. But since we're not there, and not walking in their shoes, we both speak from a luxurious position. Reason and logic is a priviledge of the prosperous. In other words, talk is cheap. In Iraq, all the people have, is their emotions. But I do think it's wrong to let your emotions rule you, if you have the opportunity to do otherwise.
I don't agree with your reasoning that the Middle East has always been a violent place, and that what the US army is doing there, is no different. No sectarian violence has gotten close to the level of chaos and destruction that the army is doing there now, I shudder to think about their future. Sure, tens of tousands of people have died in uprisings before, but they never before destroyed every high-rise apartment in the city. But if a deserting soldier (there's 10.000 more where he came from) doesn't convince you, then I definitely can't.

@Nakia
You ask an important question: Why are these theories out there? I believe some of them are out there for reason 1)
Reason 2) is both applied by disruptive elements within a country, and organisations themselves, as psychological warfare against other organisations. USA has been known to use these in the past too, but these aren't just conspiracy stories, it can be anything.
You missed another reason: 3) To confuse people, and distract them from the real questions being asked. This makes it even harder to uncover a potential conspiracy.
Here's an example of a 2) eventually becoming 3):
It's called the Illuminati. Originally it was a simple tea party started centuries ago, no women or priests invited. So men could talk about what they wanted, free from scrutiny. They probably displayed erotic drawings, and other things the wife and church shouldn't see. The church was so miffed about not knowing what was going on, that they accused the Illuminati of worshiping satan. Commoners started believing it, and before long, tall tales of human sacrifice were circling. The Illuminati ended long ago, but the possibility that they went underground has fueled christian conspiracy stories for decades. Nowadays they go hand in hand with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but mostly with a direct connection to the church.

@LKD
Yes, I took a stab at mormons again, which wasn't particularly smart, when I'm trying to keep the thread on-topic. The first time, I voluntarily and sincerely apologized, but when people keep bringing it up and rubbing it in, it got on my nerves. "I'm only human." As for the vid, I think the mormon is shooting himself in the foot by even bringing up the topic of blacks and mormonism. Another poor attempt at humour, there's a lot of it on this thread, unfortunately.
You accuse me of trolling, 'poo'-stirring, and repeat already-used arguments, that I don't use logic or reason. You're opinionated and argumentative, but you haven't added any real input into the discussion. Then your last statement:

You're more like your brother than you care to admit.
I don't shrink from controversy, but I assure you that I get no satisfaction from annoying people. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it for you: I'm here for constructive discussion, and it's supposed to be good natured. The fact that so many people are annoyed, and come with heated arguments, is actually the reason that I announced I am winding down my input in this thread (not tuck-tail and running). This should make it clear that I don't enjoy annoying people, which you and others claim.

 

There is nothing constructive in conspiracy theories with little grounding in fact. As for opinionated, we all are here, but as I mentioned before opinions should be grounded in fact. Your arguments have never once passed my common sense test.

You asked earlier about if you should have started this thread, and many people answered that you are entitled to your opinion and free expression thereof. I agree that opinions should be expressible. The trouble is that I -- and many other, I think -- get pretty heated when something of the magnitude of 9/11, and the sacrifices made and the lives lost, seems to be disrespected. You have tried more recently to show that you are not being disrespectful to the dead, and that's a good thing that I can get behind.

As for the conspiracy thing, don't get me wrong. I'm no super Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that he and his cronies likely covered up quite a lot after 9/11. But what they were covering up was their own incompetance and screw-ups, NOT a role in the bombing itself. Everything credible I've ever read about the whole deal indicates that the attackers were just who they said they were, not Bush pawns. So I am therefore extremely dismissive of anyone who tries to argue that there was a Bush conspiracy and uses flimsy evidence to support it.

and if anyone responds, you'll have the audacity to say THEY are the ones derailing the thread. However, I already made clear that I won't rise to the bait again. Post whatever you will -- your credibility is shot.