Thread: Views

Originally Posted by Phil

Didn't we declare war on them on 12/8?

No,we declared war on them after they did

Originally Posted by LoneStrSt8

No,we declared war on them after they did

Thanks for pointing that out. The NAZIs sure were stupid. Prior to Pearl Harbor I would have been more neutral than Roosevelt though, and used every diplomatic tactic to try to end the conflict. I would have tried to persuade England that having a strong Germany with a few puppet countries nearby would be a solid buffer against the Soviet Union. Roosevelt however was soft on communism and content instead to have a bunch of soviet puppet states pressed against weak European countries that would need the US to defend them.
I think he would have enjoyed the Cold War era.

Originally Posted by Jango

It is almost my birthday...

Well Happy Birthday, Jango. Hope you have/had a great day in case I missed it.

But do tell, are you trying to make the case that all of these wars/conflicts/etc either were or were brought about by false flag operations by the evil US government in order to enrich their evil corporate interests through the evil military industrial complex?

I am still hoping for commentary on those conflicts, so I will reserve my own until a later date, if you don't mind, but to give you something in semblance of an answer, yes, there has been a false flag in there, not to mention, questionable journalism and public relation practices. Furthermore, I wouldn't classify our model of military as 'evil'. A better word is 'selfish'. Our men and women look out for American interests. Or at least it used to be that way. The point is, look at those two links. Ever since we've had a Navy, and especially since we became a world power, our nation has been doing things of an immoral and selfish nature with its military. A common theme of usage for the military is 'interests'. Our nation does have a track record of imposing its might over private business interests. What were our interests for Vietnam that were so strong that it made the President lie about an attack? Hence, why you guys should participate in this thread, man.

Do you have no response to the one detailed commentary you did get?

I'm still waiting for you, Fangbeer, Dave, and Patriot to contribute.

Be nice, right?

Originally Posted by Jango

I'm still waiting for you, Fangbeer, Dave, and Patriot to contribute.

Be nice, right?

Maybe if your OP wasn't so generic in it's intent, then maybe there would actually be something to debate.

I was attempting to help you with my response to the events and key personalities which lead to the demise of the Roman Republic (zomg parallels!!11), but history doesn't seem to interest you nor be your strong suit.

Frankly I have no desire to discuss "in detail" my views regarding the 10 broad topics listed in the OP in a forum dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy. The OP fails to establish any sort of relevancy at all to 9/11 conspiracy. If the purpose is to discuss these topics, the post should be moved to the appropriate forum.

If, as the further clarification alludes, the purpose is some sort of convoluted attempt to establish precedence for 9/11 "false flag" conspiracies, then I suggest the pretense be dropped and the topic be discussed in that context.

In that vein of thought I've always been interested in how people conjure up the hare-brained motives to commit conspiracies. Obviously, "false flag" operations have to be formed to carry out some hidden agenda. It's the formation of the suspected motive that's so interesting to me. It's an ironically introspective process. It begins with the basic question, "what would I do if given the power and opportunity?" Given such theoretical unlimited power, all sorts of super villainous plots are hatched. Armies of minions are coerced into doing the most evil things in the the sewers of the theorist's mind. The most fantastic array of weaponry is at the dreamer's disposal. Everything's possible.

What's interesting though, is that there have been studies which show that these dressed up strawmen are actually projections of a person's willingness to carry out such crimes. For example, someone who thinks that Larry demolished WTC7 for insurance money might also be someone willing to consider burning their own house down for the same reason.

Once they decide their straw motive is likely, they begin to build a gallows on which to hang their strawman. The choicest bits and pieces of evidence are selected like fine cuts of wood, and the pieces that don't fit are simply thrown in the midden heap. The theorist loves his construction and will defend it to a fault. To everyone else, the conspiracy is a load of rubbish. Even other theorists will realize how poorly constructed the [narrative] is. The finished work is always a rickety pile of garbage because frankly it's been terribly constructed with half of its pieces sitting in the trash. This is why there is so much fighting and accusations of "disinfo agents" among theorists. It's because each of them has different lengths to which they would go in order to accomplish their different motives.

It's quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Jango

I would like, time barring of course, for you to describe, in detail, what your views are on the following:

World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Grenada (83)
Panama (89)
Persian Gulf War
Afghanistan War
Iraq War

They were all wars of attrition shedding blood and wasting lives and a means to an end culminating to create one thing....

.....a NEW WORLD ORDER.


But praise the LAWD it's not gonna work.

They were all wars of attrition shedding blood and wasting lives and a means to an end culminating to create one thing....

.....a NEW WORLD ORDER.

Case in point.

Here we have a theorist that has decided that the list of 10 broad topics have all been masterminded by an nefarious villain trying to control the entire world. Clearly, it was one motive, rather then thousands of motives, that was the impetus for such global conflict. The truth isn't a complex cacophony of differing political views, disputes over limited resources, or incompatible social values. All of those things are a smokescreen created by the villain. The truth is so much simpler. It's all the villain's fault.

No doubt each of the 10 topics listed can be viewed as successes for the nefarious villain who gained untold power from the outcomes of the brilliantly evil plots. The villain is so dastardly and powerful that there is nothing he can't do. All of his plots are always win win. There's no losing with this guy. Of course, most of the world is oblivious to the machinations of the unnamed villain, but those with superior intellect can see through the schemes and plots to the dirty truth.

It's nice for the great puzzles of the world to have such simple explanations, isn't it?