Originally posted by Grimpachi
Seek the truth that is the general answer you will get from most conspiracy theorists. They can’t be bothered to provide proof but would rather you
take their word on faith.
This is their religion and faith is required proof is not needed. They believe in an invisible hand behind the scenes controlling everything with a
purpose beyond our understanding just like a god but for them it is easier to believe this is done by humans that is about the only difference. There
are some that believe they/it is not human i.e. lizard people Satan and so forth but for the most part they believe this is done by humans.
Once you shake their faith with logic then you will get the usual reply of open your eyes the proof is all around you then insults usually follow like
you are blind or brainwashed and so forth. To ask them for proof is like asking a catholic for proof of god it just isn’t there so you will just
have to take it on faith.
I don’t think I am telling you anything new here however I was hoping to see someone provide some kind of credible information in this thread. Guess
I was foolish to think there was any. If someone one day actually does provide any I will be big enough to admit I was wrong but I can’t say I have
any faith that will happen.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
The problem is that most people have been programed to classify the term "conspiracy" as a paranoid response to events that they don't understand. The
definition of conspiracy is a legal term.
Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal
actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the
parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of
the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted
by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.
[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a
purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement.
Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general
intent" to violate the law.
In United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) the United States Supreme Court ruled: U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law definition of
conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability" at least insofar as to establish a
violation of a narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846. Therefore, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance
of those narcotics conspiracies prohibited by 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to
require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute. The court compares the need to prove an overt step to be criminally
liable under the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, while there is no such requirement under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
The Supreme Court pointed out that common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction
requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129
(7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).
What the uninformed fail to accept is that when it comes to governments, conspiracy has been the norm, not the exception, going back to the beginning
Lincoln,JFK, RFK, MLK, Ok.City, Waco, 9-11, Bank bailouts etc., all involved conspiratorial involvement. to further an agenda. When governments plan
conspiracies, there is generally a move to "legalize" previously "illegal" activity,by legislation or executive order, to avoid liability. The Iraqi
war is a good example. It was not just GB's war. All the ranking democrats voted for it, based on the same "intelligence" information that
subsequently proved to be wrong. So you have to ask yourself who conspired to mislead congress and a president to go to war. Who benefited. Follow the
edit on 30-8-2012 by nightstalker46 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2012 by nightstalker46 because: (no