It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Symphony of Conspiracies and Why It's Important to be "Anti-American" (Op/Ed)

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
And now there is that foul ho Mr. Ann Coulter smearing the widows of 9/11 all over the place in order sell her new book of bile

I'm not sure how a rant on Coulter relates to this topic. Everything you've said can easily apply to:

Who gives liberals a bad name.

Both "sides" have serious issues... because you're conditioned to believe there needs to be sides.




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Do you not think that terrorists pose a threat to us?


Just as the "two sides" present a black and white framework to divide us, so does "you're either with us or against us". And now, with this question, the 'terrorists' either pose a threat or they do not. How nice for continued division. You might as well ask, "Which side are you on"???

The truth is that there are not just 2 sides. As has been pointed out many times, there are many different viewpoints as regards politics and the governing of this country right now. But having 2 clear-cut sides is more divisive.

The truth is not ''you're either with us or against us". It's possible and likely to be somewhere in the middle. Most people are! Most people feel some sympathy for the countries we've invaded, but that's threatening to the black and white standard that's been set up, so... Choose a side!

The truth is that terrorism does pose some amount of threat. But not even close to the threat posed by heart disease. Terrorism poses 'some' threat. But so do prescription drugs, so does global warming, so does poverty, so do auto accidents, so does suicide, so do N. Korea, China... so does our government!

By insisting on a yes or no answer to your question, you're throwing down the gauntlet and asking people to choose a side in the battle. You're totally playing into the divide and conquer game this government has going. I don't understand how you can't see that or why you continue to play it!

The question is not so black and white as 'do terrorists pose a threat'. It's how much of a threat do they pose? Is it really something we should be giving up our rights to defend against? Where would our focus be more likely to prevent deaths of Americans?

Three thousand Americans died horrible deaths by terrorism in 2001. 435,000 died horrible deaths from tobacco in 2000. Which is the bigger threat? 32,000 died from prescription drugs. Which is the bigger threat?

Some facts about threats to Americans



Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco - 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity - 365,000
Alcohol - 85,000
Microbial Agents - 75,000
Toxic Agents - 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs - 32,000
Suicide - 30,622


And these happen every year, not just one big event.

Prescriptions Drugs are 16,400% more of a threat than terrorists

Get some perspective on this thing. Stop buying into the the big bad terrorist illusion. It's a lie.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Micheal Moore and Ann Coulter aren't even close...moore has his issues but coulter is nothing but vile bile in a short skirt



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
of course it relates...she is one of the biggest if you disagree with bush/republican/conservative policies you hate america (i.e. anti-american) BS artists around.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
jsobecky tell me what freedoms the terrorists can take away? Tell me how they would take these freedoms away. Im very interested to hear this.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
jsobecky tell me what freedoms the terrorists can take away? Tell me how they would take these freedoms away. Im very interested to hear this.

Go search thru threads where so many are saying that our gov't is taking away our liberties based upon a false fear of terrorism.

That's how they can do it.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
Do you not think that terrorists pose a threat to us?



Just as the "two sides" present a black and white framework to divide us, so does "you're either with us or against us". And now, with this question, the 'terrorists' either pose a threat or they do not. How nice for continued division. You might as well ask, "Which side are you on"???


I never could understand the brouhaha from the statement "With us or against us".
It's a simple question, and it is a black or white answer. Why are people so afraid to take a stand? Are they scared of bin Laden?


The truth is that there are not just 2 sides. As has been pointed out many times, there are many different viewpoints as regards politics and the governing of this country right now. But having 2 clear-cut sides is more divisive.


Ok. So give me a third answer to the question: do you think terrorists pose a threat to the US?


By insisting on a yes or no answer to your question, you're throwing down the gauntlet and asking people to choose a side in the battle.

Yes I am. If you want to dance, go to the hoe-down. People's lives are at stake here.



The question is not so black and white as 'do terrorists pose a threat'. It's how much of a threat do they pose?

I know... I've heard this argument before. Wait till they do something wrong before we react.

Sorry, it's time to take the game to them.


Three thousand Americans died horrible deaths by terrorism in 2001. 435,000 died horrible deaths from tobacco in 2000. Which is the bigger threat? 32,000 died from prescription drugs. Which is the bigger threat?


Jesus, BH, talk about clouding the issue!


Get some perspective on this thing. Stop buying into the the big bad terrorist illusion. It's a lie.

I sincerely hope that you and yours are not the vicims of an attack on a mall or school.

It's not a lie; did you see where Iran supposedly has tens of thousands of suicide bombers who have signed up to hit us? Should we ignore that threat?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

You're trying to trivialize and avoid a rather important point. Certainly governance bodies throughout history have a tendency to engage in secretive acts that the populace would not agree with. However, those were almost never "republics" that were founded "for the people and by the people" with aspirations to be different. Very recent history has proven to us that the current people in this administration have been involved with past cooperation with enemies of the state. Very recent history has proven that covert groups within the government have developed details plans to pose as terrorists and attack innocents. When examining our current high-profile clash with terrorist enemies, we cannot deny these very recent events and how they may relate to what's happening now.

So, it's a given that every admin since WWII has collaberated. So what?

Sometimes you have to dance with the devil.

Unless, of course, you have a master plan for world peace?



No offense but it seems like you can't unwrap your head from the concept of "us versus them". It should certainly not be about the "loudest voice", it should be about all voices. The two-sided approach has been systematically used against us to create a population of equally divided opinion. Each side has been trained to habitually blame the other for anything and everything that is wrong, and withhold credit for anything that is right.


And, as I have stated before, this thread merely perpetuates the two-sided argument.


And since that time, it's been an unrelenting barrage... validating many early 1970's predications of an ultimately equally divided nation unable to focus on issues.


It never took a Harvard PhD to figure out that the country would be divided over VN.


So when I remind people that ATS is primarily a "conspiracy theory" website, it's because there is a massive body of validated evidence and confirmed speculation from past "conspiracy theorists".

Massive body, yes. Validated, very questionable. But those who question the theorists are labelled as anti-whatever, simply because they don't accept every wacko notion that comes along.


So with all that in mind... what do you think of Operation Northwoods and the Iran Contra Affair, and how both apply to current events?


It was a much different time. A time when the threat of nuclear destruction was very real and possible. A time that humankind had never faced before.

Northwoods was a result of that. Given the time and circumstances, I can understand the thinking of our military. Remember, they just got done with WWII and Korea. Military have very long memories. They don't forget easily.

Re: Iran Contra. What do you want to know? You want me to admit that Nixon lied when he denied it? Or do you want to argue the merits of the program?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I never could understand the brouhaha from the statement "With us or against us".
It's a simple question, and it is a black or white answer. Why are people so afraid to take a stand?


Ok, "Are you with us or against us"? Is that the question?

1. Who is 'us'
2. What do you stand for?

I am 'with' the USA. The country, the Constitution, the values set forth by the founding fathers.

I am against this administration and its policies. I am against using the threat of terrorism to scare the US citizens into giving up their rights.

It's very easy to take a stand. But the country and the government are 2 different things.



Ok. So give me a third answer to the question: do you think terrorists pose a threat to the US?


I have already said they do pose a threat. A small threat. When you look at the WHOLE picture and all the threats to the American people's lives, terrorism is a pretty insignificant threat. (I'm not saying the deaths are insignificant, so don't even go there. Especially to the families of the victims.)



I sincerely hope that you and yours are not the vicims of an attack on a mall or school.


So do I. But frankly, I have much more reason to be concerned about auto accidents or prescription drugs. That's not clouding the issue, that's looking at the facts.

What you're proposing is the equivalent of freaking out every time I have to go outside because I might be stung by a bee and have an allergic reaction.



Global Terrorism Statistics Released
Clearinghouse Data Show Sharp Rise

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A07

The U.S. government released statistics yesterday documenting a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks last year and a death toll of close to 2,000 people around the globe...




Should we ignore that threat?


I'm not saying we should ignore the threat, I'm saying we should put it into perspective. Terrorism is by far one of the smallest threats to American lives today.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Wow. I'm completely blown away by some of your responses here...


Originally posted by jsobecky
Sometimes you have to dance with the devil.

This is the first occasion of being blown away...
I'm not sure I should take you serious. Are you saying it was appropriate for our government to aid a terrorist group that was holding our citizens hostage?

In the realm of "either for us or against us"... how can anyone be for that?



Unless, of course, you have a master plan for world peace?

It's not currently part of my job description. However, I don't need to have one in order to take issue with certain policies of the government.



And, as I have stated before, this thread merely perpetuates the two-sided argument.

How? It's shedding light on the fallacy and futility of the two-sides.



It never took a Harvard PhD to figure out that the country would be divided over VN.

I'm referring to post-Vietnam analysis and speculation from conspiracy theorists of the era.



Validated, very questionable.

You question FOIA documents?



It was a much different time.
>snip<
Northwoods was a result of that.

And that justifies our government developing plans to pose as foreign terrorists, hijack commercial airlines, and use the planes to attack innocents to create a pretext to invade a foreign country (Cuba)? Really?



Re: Iran Contra. What do you want to know? You want me to admit that Nixon lied when he denied it? Or do you want to argue the merits of the program?

Now this is the second occasion...
Where did Nixon factor in?
Regan's team provided aid and comfort to terrorists who were holding our citizens hostage to provide further aid to an illegal insurgency elsewhere. I'd be interested in your point of view on the merits of that.


Discussion and exchange is good and healthy. I'm not necessarily writing these opinion pieces to preach my specific point of view, but to encourage discussion on important issues. So far, it seems to be working, and I thank you and everyone else for participating. There are few things more important than our ability to meet here and share our thoughts on the events that shape our lives, and the lives of our children. Well... one thing is certainly more important... making sure we can continue to do so.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
SO, very well said. Well that last part anyway. HAHAHAHA

I want to jump in here with one thing though if I may.

All of you complaining about the two party system and how that is one of the major problems here are not really helping the situation. You are aware of that right?

See the problem with that is we are basically a two party system and I will wager we will be all the way through all of our lifetimes. So what do we do? Continue to proclaim ourselves a Moderate (what ever that is), continue to argue over the Elephant and Donkey (Notice I could have said ass HAHAHA) or attempt to change things from the inside?
Many MANY times in my career things have happened where I went home fed up and determined to get out, but I understand down in my gut that once out, I stand NO chance of making any kind of a difference. So I have stayed in uniform. (read my blog) Proclaiming yourself above the two parties, or separate from them is accomplishing what? Yes more and more are becoming disillusioned, but that has always been the case and will always be. I am a Republican and a Conservative and I am proud of that. I typically find Moderates people that can not decide which side of the fence to jump down to. I do not in anyway agree with the Liberals, yet respect those that are for making a stand. At least they have the convictions of charactor to stand for what they believe. (No matter how messed up that is. Again hahahaha)

So you can either stand apart and complain or get in the fight and try to make a difference. Both parties have made BIG mistakes and it is going to take good people pulling for them to come back around and represent us again.

A third party made up of Moderates would only spend the entire time arguing because they could not decide to go right or left.

We have currently, two parties and will have for the foreseeable future, no matter how we fuss about it on here.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
semperfortis, that is a cop out. Not many nations have more tradition or entrenched systems than Britain yet they have a popular and viable third party in national and local politics. To say that the chances of the United States getting out of the two party sham that they are in now are so low as to not even bother is a complete capitulation to a flawed system.

Where the hell has idealism gone?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Great points, Semper! And I realize that if you think I want to do away with the 2 parties, I haven't been clear enough. I am comfortable having a governmental system where there are Republicans and Democrats. I would like to see a few other choices (Independent, Libertarian, etc.) but I don't want to do away with the parties. It's the current vast division and almost hatred between the people who call themselves one party or the other that’s got me so concerned. I have no problem with the true Republican and Democratic Parties and their ideologies. I just think there should be more to choose from instead of having two so drastically divided factions.

When I say I’m neither Republican nor Democrat, it’s not because I can’t make up my mind, it’s because I believe in:

Personal Liberty (I support gay marriage and I am pro-choice, etc.)
Separation of Church and State
The Constitution
Firearm Ownership
Strict Border Control (Illegal immigrants should be removed from the USA)

Am I a Republican or a Democrat?

I don’t consider myself a “Moderate” either. I’m not moderate in my beliefs; I’m extreme in what I believe in. The closest I come to a political party is Libertarian.


Originally posted by semperfortis
We have currently, two parties and will have for the foreseeable future, no matter how we fuss about it on here.


If that’s the case, then I won’t choose, because neither of them fit me. And I’m not wishy-washy. I just won’t be forced to choose a side when I don’t want or agree with either. And fortunately, I don't have to choose a party to vote.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grimreaper797
jsobecky tell me what freedoms the terrorists can take away? Tell me how they would take these freedoms away. Im very interested to hear this.

Go search thru threads where so many are saying that our gov't is taking away our liberties based upon a false fear of terrorism.

That's how they can do it.


so you admit, the terrorists cant actually take away any of our freedoms, just merely attacks us like any common murderer would? If that is the case then I think its safe to say they are not worth fighting a war against. If they cant endanger any of my freedoms unless I fear them, then I dont fear them, thus they are common criminals as far as I can see.

They are murders, they are a threat to human life, not to our country. Thats means that our country has no reason to deal with them and police can deal with them. The FBI can search them out, because they are murders, but I think that this adminstration can go to hell for starting wars over it.

You see, they are just common murders without the help of our government...and us. Take away their only real tool, fear, and you take away the threat to our country. Yes they are still murderers so the FBI should continue to search them out, but this war on terror must end.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ok. So give me a third answer to the question: do you think terrorists pose a threat to the US?


No they dont. They pose a threat to human life, they pose a threat to american individuals by being murders, but they in no way threaten the US. Just because they are foreign murders doesnt mean they threaten the US, it means they are murders that the FBI should find and put in a court of law.

If you want to believe they are a threat to THE USm, then be my guest and tell me why. Just because you kill american citizens doesnt mean your a threat to the US. Timothy Mcveigh was a mass murder not a national threat. He couldnt take any land, restrict everyones freedoms in the land, and he couldn't endanger our way of life. So to me hes just a mass murdering criminal. I think we have gotten the idea twisted that if you attack americans, you attack america. You attack america when you start taking land with guns and weapons. You attack america when you invade a part of the country and restrict the peoples rights in that area. You attack america only when you attack the system. You dont attack america because you kill american citizens, that makes you a murderer.



I know... I've heard this argument before. Wait till they do something wrong before we react.

Sorry, it's time to take the game to them.


why? To save lives? If your not willing to take the risks of living in a free society then whats the point of living free? Im not telling you to leave, I just want to know why you feel you should kill people who are not yet guilty because you dont want to accept the risks of living free? Freedom is choice, thus you must let them decide if they want to become terrorists (actually murderers).



I sincerely hope that you and yours are not the vicims of an attack on a mall or school.

It's not a lie; did you see where Iran supposedly has tens of thousands of suicide bombers who have signed up to hit us? Should we ignore that threat?


Thats really low jsobecky. Now your trying to play off the fear of death in order to try to sway people into supporting your side of the issue. No one hopes for anyone to be victims of an attack, but it was there choice to risk it by living free. If I were to die and were able to look back on it, I wouldnt regret dying, Id be proud that I gave my life living free like the founders of the country wanted it. That I stick to my roots of living free, letting no one sway me from being to scared to take the risk of living free.

A free society is the ultimate loss of control over all situations, and if you cant deal with the fact you cant control everything, then you need to check where you stand.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Wow. I'm completely blown away by some of your responses here...


Originally posted by jsobecky
Sometimes you have to dance with the devil.

This is the first occasion of being blown away...
I'm not sure I should take you serious. Are you saying it was appropriate for our government to aid a terrorist group that was holding our citizens hostage?

There are times when it is necessary, if not appropriate. All major decisions and outcomes are decided below the belt, and are made with factors that we never know. What you see and hear thru the media is nothing but sanitized propaganda.


In the realm of "either for us or against us"... how can anyone be for that?

In my own, personal gut, I have no problem making a choice. But that's just me; I never was one to appease other people. That's probably why I've always been appointed instead of elected.


Validated, very questionable.


You question FOIA documents?

No. I question the interpretation of them by those who ae not qualified to make a reasoned judgement.


It was a much different time.
>snip<
Northwoods was a result of that.


And that justifies our government developing plans to pose as foreign terrorists, hijack commercial airlines, and use the planes to attack innocents to create a pretext to invade a foreign country (Cuba)? Really?

Our gov't didn't do that; it was the act of renegade officers. And as I stated earlier, I can empathize with them. Their job is to protect us. They stopped Hitler from his plans, they sure weren't going to let a small time dictator threaten us. And at the time, JFK was locking horns with them.

It was actually a spill-over from Ike.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
jsobecky, do you have me on ignore or are you just ignoring me?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ok, "Are you with us or against us"? Is that the question?

1. Who is 'us'
2. What do you stand for?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
it was the act of renegade officers.

Sorry, Operation Northwoods was presented directly to the Joint Chiefs.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In 1962 The Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up a plan to justify waging an all out war against Cuba. Among its recommendations were a terror campaign against Cubans living in Florida, The hijacking of airplanes and surface vessels and the in flight replacement of passenger airlines with drones which would be shot down. All choreographed by the military


Well... thanks for being a part of this discussion. It's clear you and I have very different outlooks on history, current events, and ethical governance.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
SO, you just posted the rambling opinions of ATS conspiracy theorists as Proof? Of what could they possibly prove? Threads off of ATS are not exactly a mainstream news article supported by anything. I like this site, but sorry, no proof there.

I even went to the threads and tried the links associated with them and found some not available and the one I did find looked like something my kid drew in 3rd grade.

If your going to post "proof" of a Northwoods conspiracy, please use proof for those of us interested and I am interested, but ATS is not going to prove anything. It's fun here, but in no way serious proof of anything.

I would love to learn more of this Northwoods thing as I am not familiar with it at all. As far as Iran Contra, I have already stated my OP on that, I'm going to vote for Colonel North for President.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
want me to help ya out semper, Im sure I could round up my old links in a couple minutes time.
Ill edit this post when I get it all together.

well hot damn only needed one page, the original documents.
www.gwu.edu...

[edit on 16-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join