A fallacy

Just a question. if we wanted to get attacked, or were planning to attack ourselves(to milk another war), then why would we be doing phone taps and limiting freedom?

Wouldn't allowing total freedom then attacking yourself speed the way for people siding with you, as opposed to slowly taking away rights and acting like your securing them?

This whole "frog in boiling water" thing conspiracy theorists say the governments is doing doesn't make sense because...well...we're not frogs!

We are perfectly capable of seeing things change and alerting the masses so, thinking this way, making society 100% free, then attacking yourself would be FAR better and quicker.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Gorman91]

It's about control of variables. Risk management.

If you were to stage a false flag you would be doing it in a targeted manner with emphasis on your targets. Efforts would be made to limit the collateral economic, political and human collateral damage.

Letting domestic terror groups have free reign creates scenarios that could destabilise the country in a manner not beneficial to your projected outcome.

reply to post by Nerdling


And doing it slowly changes anything?

Isn't it clear that the existence of this very website invalidates what you said?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Nerdling

Isn't it clear that the existence of this very website invalidates what you said?

Err... No?

reply to post by Nerdling


I think yes.

If they were doing a good job this website wouldn't exist and all the masses would be on their knees begging the feds for protection.

The fact no one is effected essentially provides the future for a definite revolution because when, if ever, they do take the last bit of freedom, people will wonder how they came here and start resisting.


As opposed to allowing 100% freedom, and taking it away in the chaos that ensues, in which people will know why there's no freedom and understand why they need protection, happily trusting the feds.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Just a question. if we wanted to get attacked, or were planning to attack ourselves(to milk another war), then why would we be doing phone taps and limiting freedom?

Wouldn't allowing total freedom then attacking yourself speed the way for people siding with you, as opposed to slowly taking away rights and acting like your securing them?

This whole "frog in boiling water" thing conspiracy theorists say the governments is doing doesn't make sense because...well...we're not frogs!

We are perfectly capable of seeing things change and alerting the masses so, thinking this way, making society 100% free, then attacking yourself would be FAR better and quicker.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Gorman91]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Gorman91]

Slow and subtle change is key. Fast change is what is noticable. Now of course the rates will vary due to individual opinions but the masterminds' determine or will determine the speed of changed based on their opinions.

In regards to total freedom, it is not necessary when the masterminds have the power necessary to stage an attack, which is what Nerdling might have been saying. The problem is whether it really is staged or if it is just pure instigation. We may never find out. If pure instigation, then maybe total freedom would make sense. I do not know I will have to ponder on that one for a while but I am about 80 percent sure as of now.



[edit on 13-8-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

but if you were in total freedom, then attacked, there would be ALOT more support to giving up freedoms to security.