View Full Version : Does the gov ever plan terrorist attacks?
Jul 11th, 2004, 11:46 AM
It helps to gain control over people so ...
Does the U.S. government plan terrorist attacks?
Jul 11th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Doubt it, but conspiracy theorists say yes. There is no evidence to prove it, and there would be little point in it with checks and balances, so I would say no.
Jul 11th, 2004, 1:26 PM
You mean the same goverment that did radiation tests on people, and didn't inform them in anyway? nah i don't think that goverment would hurt it's own people to make themself more powerful.
Jul 11th, 2004, 2:16 PM
Yes, they have and always will. No evidence? Heh. Do you not know what was done during the cold war? Do you not know what we tried to do to Cuba? This isn't conspiracist talk, it's common knowledge. And these are just a small sample of ones we know about.
Jul 11th, 2004, 2:54 PM
Doubt it, but conspiracy theorists say yes. There is no evidence to prove it, and there would be little point in it with checks and balances, so I would say no
^^^No^^^.... but thank you DA.
If you are referring to 'state sponsored terrorism' then it's a definate yes. I don't know how much more clear it could be. I suggest you re-read some of the tactics the US has used in the past to get what they want.
While some aren't from the US specifically, I point you towards how we used the Maine to justify war with the Spanish, and how we were 'trying' to provoke Cuba, or make it look like Cuba had in fact attacked us. One plan referenced us sinking one of our own ships, the other part said we could 'down a commercial airliner.'
Just do some research on the Northwoods document. Then do some research on the Oklahoma bombing, and WTCs first attack. Better yet, download 911 - The road to Tyranny. It recaps some state sponosred terrorism of the past.
Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:
*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."
*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
I would call it a yes. There are even some Canadians who are bold enough to say 9/11 was 'helped' along by the US, or that we knew it was coming, and did nothing to prevent it.
Conspiracy my ass, some of these are very common knowledge indeed.
Jul 11th, 2004, 2:55 PM
"The Party seeks power entirely for its for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that, We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship..." 1984 - George Orwell.
Jul 12th, 2004, 12:26 AM
When you think about this. I mean really think. Why would our government create terrorist attacks? What gain would it have now a days. Where not out to conquer land anymore the government needs to protect its people so creating a terrorist attack and taking Iraq over really wouldn't benefit us. Look at all the money we've spent on it. Do you really believe that if where not there to Conquer land, or make a profitable gain on it We would really start destroying our own buildings (which still would cost more money to repair/replace).
oh and another note. taking over Iraq wouldn't even be a start for a ""War On Oil"" If we truly wanted to fight a war to conquer oil then Sudan,Saudi Arabia,or Kuwait would have been in our Crosshairs not Afghanistan and Iraq. Just something to think about...
Jul 12th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Our goverment trained the terrorists, thats common knowledge.
Jul 12th, 2004, 12:59 AM
There is no hard evidence to prove the recent attacks were caused by the government. Every "fact" those conspiracy theorists claims is either a lie or really far fetched. So Bush was reading to some children, what else was he going to do? That whole "missile picture" pretty much shows how pathetic those theorists are. Why would they crash into the World Trade Towers AND THE PENTAGON, YOU KNOW, WHERE GOVERNMENT WORKERS WORK, when they could do the same effect with a cheaper land mark like the World Series?
As for the radiation thing, that really wasn't terrorism as it wasn't a method used to spread terror, and the Bay of Pigs was more of a "common enemy = our friend" thing.
Jul 12th, 2004, 1:29 AM
Since you're ignoring thousands of years of previous "terrorism" that leaders have carried out on their own people, I'll sum it up for you. The public schools will never tell you this, but governments regularly rely on hoaxes and hypes to sell their agendas to an otherwise stubborn public (may I point you to Iraq). This is not a conspiracy, it's a fact.
The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice. This is what I (and many others) would call "mindless group think." The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.
Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that "We The People" have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in... and when you have some big event (terror attack), and a reaction, the people will blindly follow, without being over-critial... get it?
Clinton had an anti-terror bill shot down RIGHT before the OK bombing. Then KaB00M! Directly after, they were more than happy to pass the new laws.
"As we warned last year in the Freedom Network News and in Jim Elwoods's "Dictatorship at Your Doorstep" pamphlet, this is a dangerous piece of legislation - the equivalent of Hitler's "Enabling Acts", in our opinion. Among other things, the act provides for secret trials, deportation of resident aliens without due process, and seizure of assets of any individual or organization that an increasingly more criminal government may arbitrarily declare "terrorist". There is no provision for appeal or return of siezed assets."
...How else do you get across the patriot act (which some senators admitted they hadn't read and was written within a month ) which just obliterates civil liberties? It slipped through at the midnight hour under the cover of darkness, voted on by men and women engulfed in a terrifying atmosphere of shock, fear, mass media hysteria, and suspiciously targeted anthrax mailings. The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress nearly unanimously and signed into law by Pres. Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and those that wanted to think about it (or even stopped to question it) were automatically labeled 'unpatriotic.'
Shit... Anyone participating in activist groups such as Greenpeace, Earth Liberation Front, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or in protests like the 1999 demonstration in Seattle against the WTO could find himself suddenly stripped of his rights by the simple act of being declared a "terrorist" in keeping with the definition of this law.
What isn't there to understand in that? It's about control, and they want more.... what better way to push your agenda? Whatever you want to believe, self-terrorism is a part of nearly all the world governments history, wheter they used it to push through a peice of controversial legislation, or to start an 'uprising' they needed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.