Trying to debunk a little info

I have never questioned my source of information, but this was far out in the boon docks as to a point in which got me confused.

I asked my source this.

‘Why is America going after all the counties that have oil, They are starting to look like a 21-century duplicate of what Germany was trying to do as far as rule the world.’

REPLY.

TextOil, water and MONEY have nothing to do with what’s going on…have you noticed that all those Muslims are white…they are trying to free them.

TextImagine if the United States was ruled black or Spanish…you would make sure that your people around the world are free.

TextThey are just freeing the people, its something that is a tradition amongst history.’

OOOK.

So my next question was…is ‘OSAMA BIN LADEN REALLY DEAD?
REPLY.

Text‘Osama was giving a gift for what he accomplished but did not accomplish’

TextHe played his role just as the book was written…

TextWas Osama ever alive in the first place …to ask is he really dead is in question to …who is this Osama that you speak of…I don’t know?

I’m usually on point in coming up with scenarios of what is talking about, I kind of understand the
’ Free my people that have the same skin color bit‘ ,its unusual…but I can semi relate…I guess!

I am thinking it’s a military strategic agenda to get close to china and Russia, forget oil and forget because they are Muslims… those countries are just in the way... I guess!

As far as the reply on Osama bin laden…im totally lost!

SO…Was Osama real in the first place?
What role did he play?
What does the book mean?
And what did he accomplish and what didn’t he accomplish?

Is the United States trying to free its people in other lands…is this the real reason why?

Well apparently Tom Friedman agrees.

If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny."

Foriegn Policy . com

But I'm dubious of the whole "Their people" thing.
Friedman makes it sound more like, they just want to bring people out of the medieval period,
or out from underneath medieval systems.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Well apparently Tom Friedman agrees.

If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny."

Foriegn Policy . com

But I'm dubious of the whole "Their people" thing.
He makes it sound more like, they just want to bring people out of the medieval period,
or out from underneath medieval systems.

David Grouchy

So do you think it’s true? Is this what you call a…‘Ethnic freeing‘?

The fact that America turns most nations it conquers into dictatorships and expects low wage, high export economies in return, kinda puts a spanner in the works of "freeing" people. Oh yeah, and the cluster bombs. Cant really free people with cluster bombs, or DU, cant really free anyone with radiation sickness either i dont think. Maybe thats just there way of saying they care i guess, but im not too convinced.

You raise a facinating topic in this thread,
and I'm chewing on it. Thanks for the challenge.

Honestly I've never heard of such a thing before.

I'm not saying it's not true. Not at all. Could be.
In fact it passes my first test for any conspiracy theory.

1. If it's a real conspiracy, no one should know about it.

/still pondering
David Grouchy

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27

‘Why is America going after all the counties that have oil, They are starting to look like a 21-century duplicate of what Germany was trying to do as far as rule the world.’

REPLY.

Oil, water and MONEY have nothing to do with what’s going on…have you noticed that all those Muslims are white…they are trying to free them.

This person is saying that blood is thicker than water. Or money. Or even Oil.

But _if_ they are trying to help along some kind of racist agenda,
why make Iran into an enemy. Those guys look more European than anyone.

wiki: grand ayatollah

And why did the US integrate the millitary in the first place.
If everyone is only out for their own.
If this is the reason for the wars
I find it a grossly inefficient way to do it.
Would have been cheeper just to send in choppers and rescue
who-ever-you-think-is-one-of-your-kind.

My Conclusion: Zero evidence or practicallity. 100% emotionally charged statements. This theory fails my second rule of conspiracy theories.


2. Is this primarily trying to appeal to me on an emotional level.


David Grouchy

I talked to a guy in the military once. I never asked him what branch nor what his ranking status was.

We started talking and I jokingly asked him "So, when did they really kill Osama?" This was a few days after it was publicly released, mind you.

He looked at me and his face went from being light-hearted and silly from our previous chatting to being cold and serious. He said these words to me "Long before it was released." As if Osama had been dead much longer than we were told.

The conversation obviously got a little more serious and I had to ask why they would lie to everyone about this type of information, not that I was surprised at the fact.

He figures that it was somewhat of a trump card to please America. He said there was a lot of pressure on President Barack Obama at the time, it was right after he released his birth certificate and people were questioning his validity of being a president. So, they needed a little something to win the people back over. Since he believes that Osama was dead for awhile, President Obama could just dip his hand into his bag of tricks and pull out the Osama Card. Saying "Hey, America! Look what I did as a great president! I ended the reign of a mass murderer!" Surely, this would give him some popularity or at least distract people from eyeing him.

However, none of this is factual and all word-of-mouth and I can not confirm (or deny) any of it. Take from it what you will, this is just what he told me.

I don't know about his references to freeing a people. I''m not entirely certain where Obama's deepest loyalties lay if he is ever pushed as President to go hard one direction or the other, but I don't see anything so personal driving him. I think Obama has much grander plans than benefiting people he wouldn't see as really deserving anyway.


The Usama reference though... Hmm.. Now that makes some sense to what I believe actually did happen. He existed alright....and history for the Afghan/Soviet war is very clear that Usama hated the CIA with a purple passion even then. He wasn't shy about it then or since. I think he was alive right up to that night in Pakistan...and lets just say he'll never be seen by anyone again regardless so what does the rest matter? He was erased...without so much as a grave or a pile of ash to show he'd ever been. I can't imagine a better way for him to have gone.


If it makes everyone feel better and Obama believe he's clever to say the radical increase in operations and very successful operations at that, since that night in Pakistan is all from hard drives and USB flash drives. So be it... Whatever floats their boat...and it really doesn't matter right now anyway. Our children can read the books 40 years from now and find out what really happened to him.

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
My Conclusion: Zero evidence or practicallity. 100% emotionally charged statements. This theory fails my second rule of conspiracy theories.


2. Is this primarily trying to appeal to me on an emotional level.

David,

Why do you think that a conspiracy can't be real AND appeal to you on an emotional level. Or have a misunderstood you?

I'm not saying I think you are right or wrong by the way.

Pimander,

Emotions are fine.
Emotions in the absence of any single salient fact or evidence
is the stuff that attrocities are made of.

Do I find the theory warants further investigation, an intriguing chain of evidence,
or do I find that the theory leaves me with a certain feeling about things.
See the difference?


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy

It looks like we agree.

What are your other criteria for a valid conspiracy? You have listed 2 on this thread.....

ahhhh no fair peeking.

I had read over 7,000 conspiracy theories in the early days of usenet.newgroups, before I came up with my rules.
With these rules only 2 theories have survived as possible, that I heard back then.

But this is the post 2001 era,
and not everyone I'm dealing with has coding skills
like were required, even to log on, back in the day.

Because of that I would rather remain open to the reasoning used by others to sift information for knowledge.
I share these two rules because I found them very useful.
But I wasn't planning on doing a core dump.


David Grouchy

reply to post by LogiosHermes27



Without oil you cannot have a viable military. Without a viable military you can't defend "freedom" is how the theory goes.

Now "freedom" is an abstract. Is freedom individual liberty to be shared equally among all people, or just a few at the top of the economic spectrum?

Is freedom positive liberty or negative liberty? If a mixture of both how should it be balanced?

These are some basic questions to ask in understanding why we are practicing a global empire model.

With unrestricted money in politics it can't be real democracy, and thus we have become a plutocracy. The only alternative to a real democracy.

The reason in relation to oil is this.

Oil creates wealth within a small minority at the top due to OPEC restricting supply and unregulated speculation of its trade upping the price. This squeezes all the would be disposable income out of the pockets of us, the lil people. So we cannot have the means to influence politics collectively with our money as the top 1% do, and the cycle of the current establishment power structure marches on. The Mitt Romney power structure just to note.

reply to post by LogiosHermes27


logios Hermes was banned after he made this thread,i wonder why?

reply to post by RealTalk


Hmm. That is very odd. I checked his most recent replies and none of them had a T&C violation. The only thing I could conclude is that possibly he had a violation of the T&C during a U2U private conversation.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Could have been an old member who was banned, if he logged in under a new name they would have known it was him/her by the IP address.

It's a shame cause this thread was quite interesting.

ALS

reply to post by ALOSTSOUL


That is also true. I suppose we will never really know and I guess it doesn't matter any way, but I would be curious to know if his ban was related to this thread at all.

Originally posted by RealTalk
reply to post by LogiosHermes27

 

logios Hermes was banned after he made this thread,i wonder why?

I shall protest. Logios Hermes is a legend. doesn't the ATS mods here know this fact? Logios

Hermes is the lil dude who is so cool. My nic is dedicated to his coolness.