Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's quite astounding that the common refrain that you get from bringing up Operation Northwoods is that "but the President didn't sign off on that"
Which is a total diversion from the fact that individuals from the Joint Chief of Staff had the gall and the audacity to even propose such a treasonous plan. And this wasn't just some plan that they wrote up because they thought it would be great for a Tom Clancy novel. They literally planned on implementing it
So the true question to ask is what happens when the "National Security" sector of government grows so large that they no longer ask for the President's permission to perform all, most, or even any of their covert actions?
What happens when the "National Security" form of government instead becomes more and more mercenaries for the banking and corporate class? Overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing puppet dictators. Or only removing non democratic leaders when it's in the best interest of those who profit from the resources of the land? What happens when you outsource more and more of the armed military forces as "private military contractors"? And your "just cause" for war becomes "Just because" we want to prop up the dollar as a reserve currency and tie it to petroleum.
Then more and more you can have decisions that are being made out of Washington DC so no matter how benevolent a President may be, he doesn't have a voice in those plans.
Yep. And we know from history that the military and joint chiefs have no problem circumventing the executive branch.
Why do you suppose it is illegal in areas for citizens to video police officers while performing their "duties"?
It's obvious abuse of the wiretapping laws. And the problem with most bad legislation or bad enforcement of it, is a treasonous court system that justifies it.
And of course on one hand the government making it illegal and even felonious to video police officers while on the other hand increasing surveillance of citizens in every aspect of their lives
Just like on one hand you have sectors of the government trying to limit the amount of ammunition and types of firearms the citizens can have while on the other hand you have record number of purchases of ammunition by the government
Why the double standard? We can all speculate. Some go as far as extreme as saying they are planning to use those on citizens. Again that is all speculation but the main point is that a double standard clearly exists
And when you create an environment where you take away more and more transparency away from law enforcement or agencies under the guise of "national security" you create the environment for corruption.
Anyone that places more than an ounce of trust in the American mainstream media and/or the American government is a fool.
End of story.
But we shouldn't be hear to call them names. I started this thread to get an understanding of their logic. Or to at least challenge them to see if they can defend their views on this issue. It's important that we engage this topic so people can learn to separate their views from what they've been taught or want to believe regarding their government. Personally I believe anyone who challenges their underlying assumptions on this topic will no longer give government the benefit of the doubt. But I want to hear the internal logic of people who are strong in their convictions that government could not and would not stage a terror event.
I saw a couple people have the argument that "too many people would have to be involved" which is the #1 refrain
But again I want anyone who feels this way or to play devil's advocate even if they don't feel that way to give a list of how many people would have to be involved
Name a number of people that would have to be involved and what branch of government they would have to come from and their level of involvement and why it would be necessary for them to approve or be in the planning stages of such an act?
Name a number of people that would have to be involved and what branch of government they would have to come from and their level of involvement and why it would be necessary for them to approve or be in the planning stages of such an act?
Well now, that's science, right there.
It involves both ambient fear, and the direct application of fear.
Not necessary. Just ignore intelligence and allow the attacks to happen, so you can get additional defense funding and increase foreign aid to the ME and Israel in the name of "allies" and security. In war, people are lost and "big picture" folks simply see the domestic casualties as the necessary cost to increase the depth and breadth of government. All the 9/11 truther stuff can be dismissed if you just observe that Mossad didn't share information about 9/11 being imminent. It was in their best interest for it to happen.
But we shouldn't be hear to call them names. I started this thread to get an understanding of their logic. Or to at least challenge them to see if they can defend their views on this issue. It's important that we engage this topic so people can learn to separate their views from what they've been taught or want to believe regarding their government. Personally I believe anyone who challenges their underlying assumptions on this topic will no longer give government the benefit of the doubt. But I want to hear the internal logic of people who are strong in their convictions that government could not and would not stage a terror event.
I saw a couple people have the argument that "too many people would have to be involved" which is the #1 refrain
But again I want anyone who feels this way or to play devil's advocate even if they don't feel that way to give a list of how many people would have to be involved
Name a number of people that would have to be involved and what branch of government they would have to come from and their level of involvement and why it would be necessary for them to approve or be in the planning stages of such an act?
Why don't you tell us how many people and what positions in what branch of government they would have held to stage the Boston bombing? Maybe you should answer a few questions. It's easy to argue when you're asking all the questions and not really providing any links to any facts that may support your assertions.
Your question is too broad. Of course the "government" could stage a terrorist event. The question is how big and how many people would have to be involved. How "elaborate" could a staged terrorist event/attack be if done by the "government"?
Not necessary. Just ignore intelligence and allow the attacks to happen, so you can get additional defense funding and increase foreign aid to the ME and Israel in the name of "allies" and security. In war, people are lost and "big picture" folks simply see the domestic casualties as the necessary cost to increase the depth and breadth of government. All the 9/11 truther stuff can be dismissed if you just observe that Mossad didn't share information about 9/11 being imminent. It was in their best interest for it to happen.
Or you train, finance, and arm radical groups to have invasions/revolutions in one country.
And then you use those same radical groups who you trained, financed, and armed as justification for invasion of a country
Down the road the inevitable instability in Libya, Syria etc can be justification for invasion of Libya,Syria or another neighboring country that is likely to be influenced by those same forces
Or you have the wind up toy that has been a very popular thing by the FBI
But just in theory, I'm interested in why people think our government could or couldn't stage a terror event and get away with it.
I think our government could easily rig a terror plot.
It would be a lot more likely to be successful, IMO, if the plot was hatched by and managed by one or two people, then the responsibilities under the people who orchestrated the plot were parceled out to different, totally unrelated parties so that nobody would know exactly how the pieces fit together. Either that, or the one small group of people would have to carry out the whole thing.
People who claim that such a thing "could" or "would" never happen make assumptions that are equally as crazy as those of many conspiracy theorists. They both fill in dots that don't exist, and assemble hierarchical assumptions based on whatever "proves" their point.
Why don't you tell us how many people and what positions in what branch of government they would have held to stage the Boston bombing? Maybe you should answer a few questions. It's easy to argue when you're asking all the questions and not really providing any links to any facts that may support your assertions.
Your question is too broad. Of course the "government" could stage a terrorist event. The question is how big and how many people would have to be involved. How "elaborate" could a staged terrorist event/attack be if done by the "government"?
I rest my case on all of human history of government killing, enslaving, it's own citizens.
It is on those who say America is the EXCEPTION to all of human history and all of human nature to make their case on what is so unique about America that would prevent America from having a staged terror attack.
Don't divert away and focus on a single event which is based on evidence for or against that event. That's not the point. It's about people who theoretically don't think government should even be a suspect EVER, let alone a major suspect.
NSA used to be a joke called "No Such Agency". Under the label of "Top Secret" and "Confidential" and of course "National Security" what exactly couldn't they plan or implement? And precedent has been set even for the FBI to suppress whisteblowers, let alone the abuse of confidentiality that could made by agencies who even have their budgets classified let alone their actions.
There have been hundreds of thousands of man hours even if you had 8 hour days for all of those agencies since their inception, yet other than what is willingly declassified and not heavily redacted do we get a hold of
WiIth that kind of protection, again what are the limits? That's as lack a transparency as any government you can think of in modern history.
And lastly when you add a media who's shown their only MO is to go along with whatever script they are handed, even if there are defectors or whistleblowers from corruption, where is their recourse to reach the masses?
Last edited by ATTC; 04-25-2013 at 10:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
