I wasn't talking about the CIA... Nor am I aware of anything shady that they do.
What kind of conspiracy theorist are you?
Alright, you know what? I'm not getting sucked into this crap. (I'm not speaking just to you Neonivek, don't worry.) The problem with "theories" about the guvmint pulling strings and shit is that you can just claim anything. If the reality was anything close to what you claim you dance around in mad revelry and satisfaction. The other 99% of the time you can just claim the counter-evidence is fake too. It's like trying to reconcile deistic religion with string theory, you can just claim whatever you want as reality and keep moving the goal posts. So let's have another breakdown.
A) The MEDIA (!?!?1?one) is not a monolithic entity that sits down to compare notes every Friday on how they can best bring glory to the Reptilians or whatever nebulous world domination goals are being ascribed to them. Yes, reporters can get stuff wrong or make shit up. Yes, reporting organizations can be bought off or have institutional biases. That does not mean that everything that was ever reported was corporate disinformation.
B) The GOVERNMENT (?!?!??eleven) is not a monolithic entity, certainly not between national boundaries, not even within one country, nor from one administration to the next. The whole reason this underwear guy is even known of is because of how much petty infighting there is between the various US intelligence agencies, let alone all the other internal conflicts. In never ceases to amaze me how people can in one breath insist that everything the government does is party of elaborate, meaningless power plays between parties, and at the same time party distinction is completely meaningless because all politicians everywhere are on a firstname basis, and get together after work to cackle with glee and plot new ways to steel your money. I'm getting off on a tangent here, but remember this always - whatever you're accusing a person or organization of, stop once in a while and ask yourself "does the motivation I've ascribed them for doing this have anything to do with rational reality?".
C) Yes, there are definitive cases where politicians manipulated reporting to advance a fabricated story for political gain. Welcome to the real fucking world, and if you think Pearl Harbor was somehow all planned in advance, Google the name "Valerie Plame" or watch "Bush on Broadway" and get ready to blow your top. But again,
that there have been "conspiracies" between actors in the past does not mean that everything everywhere you dislike was a conspiracy.
And I'm wasting my breath berating this anyway, because the crux of matter is that none of you would even be bringing this up unless you thought isolated instances of talk-heads doing what talking-heads do best was somehow self-evidently true and relevant to the matter. So as OP, I'm going to put my foot down again. This thread is about the Underwear Bomber and stuff immediately pertaining to that. Not whether the media (!?!twelve) pulled the Vietname War out of thin air or whatever. There will be no more unsupported statements of irrefutation, nor ascription of motive to pure lust for power and greed. Subterfuge does not exist just to be subterfuge.
Author
Topic: I want to talk about the underwear bomber (Read 7494 times)