“Terrorist” Conspiracy Theorists??

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
As the title of this thread suggest this is about the possibility of what many would call “conspiracy theorists” turning to terrorism.

Many on ATS hold some very strong believes that many would call fanatical, many take the view that there exists a New World Order that has been attempting to bring about a one world government led by the “elites” and to control the people of the world. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to these individuals as “Conspiracy Theorists” although I am sure many would rather a different label or no label what so ever. These “conspiracy theorists” believe that in order for the New World Order to achieve their presumed objective they have taken control of our governments and economies, they have engineered many world shaping events such as 9/11 and the global financial crisis. Furthermore many claim to have knowledge of the identities of these individuals with in government and the corporate elite examples include the Bush family, Winsor family, Rothschild family and the Murdoch’s as well as many of the world leaders. Many conspiracy theorists hold firm they believe that these people are the biggest threat that they face to their freedom and security.

My question therefore is this, are the any people on ATS who would resort to taking up arms in acts of violence against those who they perceive to be part of this new world order to protect themselves from what they believe to be a threat to their security and freedom. In addition to this is anyone aware of such actions having taken place in the past in which people have committed acts of terrorism (not of war) in the belief that they are defending themselves for a conspiracy.

In short would anyone resort to terrorism or does anyone know of individuals who have either planned or attempted acts of terrorism to fight against the NWO or any other perceived conspiracy.

Please note by terrorist I mean terrorism as defined by the state and by conspiracy theorist I mean an individual who would hold the belief that the NWO exists and is a real threat. I know that many may not agree with how I am defining “conspiracy theorist” but I think for the purpose of continuity it is important.

I look forward to your responses, thanks for reading.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I support revolution...not just any kind of revolution, but the revolution that puts power back in the hands of the people most affected by the decisions that said power is able to make - if that makes any sense. But I don't support a revolution that believes violence is the answer, and I don't support a revolution that is run by people who believe they deserve to be on top.

I just want everyone to be on equal ground. Whatever skills you have, use them for the good of yourself and the community, and in your free time, use it to make the future better. And keep that cycle going. Eventually, when we realize where we want the world to be, we'll be in the position to make it happen.

But first, we need a revolution, and if that's where the revolution is aimed, then I'm all for it.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Considering that you mentioned in a past thread that you have a Langley ID, I would CAUTION any ATSer's from answering your questions!!!!

Are you seriously gonna tell me you are not trying to set people up???

Nice try!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 




Considering that you mentioned in a past thread that you have a Langley ID, I would CAUTION any ATSer's from answering your questions

LOL well remembered!

But seriously I was joking; I think that in the context of the post you are recalling it is quite clear that I was being sarcastic. For the record though I do not have a Langley ID nor am I currently employed with any law enforcement agency



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



LOL well remembered!

But seriously I was joking; I think that in the context of the post you are recalling it is quite clear that I was being sarcastic. For the record though I do not have a Langley ID nor am I currently employed with any law enforcement agency


Well, my friend, I took you seriously, and I hope you can understand my caution........



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I am sorry you didn’t quite get my British sarcasm

But

let me assure you I am not employed by any law enforcement or intelligence agency.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Yeah I would be careful what you say in this thread



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Are you saying that Alex Jones is a terrorist?

edit on 18-9-2012 by toocoolnc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by toocoolnc
 


There is no way I am about to watch a video over two hours long without a synopsis and some information about how this relates to my thread.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   


“Conspiracy Theorists”


Never did like that label.

I prefer the term "Alternative Thinkers"

Peace



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I have been quite clear about definitions in the OP, if I am honest I am not a big fan of the label either but for the purpose of this discussion it is important to have a definition to work from that I have make clear in the OP.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I do not now nor do I ever support terrorism( the real definition not the state definition) as it is ment to cause terror, not to accomplish needed and much wanted change in .gov.

Yes I support and in fact would participate in many forms of ( state defined) terrorism. As protesting under obamas NDAA is a terrorist act, as is any and all forms of decent against a tyranical .gov/corporate onligarchy.

So your definition alone is a loaded question. As according to the states definition, George Washington was on the same level as osama bin laden. Meaning there is much changes to your ops assumption of terrorism to even have any kind of intelligent discourse on the supposed subject matter.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



LOL well remembered!

But seriously I was joking; I think that in the context of the post you are recalling it is quite clear that I was being sarcastic. For the record though I do not have a Langley ID nor am I currently employed with any law enforcement agency


Well, my friend, I took you seriously, and I hope you can understand my caution........


All i needed to know, +10000 for seeker.
2 in a row is never good.
edit on 18-9-2012 by RABiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


According to state and federal laws everybody is a terrorist.
I hope where I stand is obvious.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by amurphy245
Yeah I would be careful what you say in this thread


another in agreement huh
your just not having a good day



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by violence=answer
one just has to disagree, and they can be detained. Even, the fed reserve banks have their own police force, that can arrest without a warrant. remain nonviolent, make them be the aggressor. they hate that



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RABiam
 


They are violent... And they are the aggressors... And judging, again from their record, they absolutely love out on all levels.
Even if people were to take up and right now, it would be in response, a defensive move, against what has already happened.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you went up to an illuminatus, and said "You're in the New World Order" he'd say "oh you mean the wrestling team? No, I'm not. but I'm trying to build one...."

it's not an "order of people" there's no plaque or stationary with NWO on it unless you're at a WWF event, man.

it's a planned hypothetical "economical-social state system"... not an inclusive order of individuals. You need to correct this in your inner conspiracy mythos dictionary.

To me, this misunderstanding is as juvenile a perception, as someone who actually doesn't know the difference between there and their, or says libary instead of library or pacific instead of specific... it's not that you keep making the mistake, it's that you don't even know you're making the mistake.. and it's widespread and made by many people.

edit on 9/18/2012 by prevenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
My question therefore is this, are the any people on ATS who would resort to taking up arms in acts of violence against those who they perceive to be part of this new world order to protect themselves from what they believe to be a threat to their security and freedom.


I wouldn't. There are smarter, better ways to ruin these alleged NWO people, or even start a revolution. If you're smart, terrorism and violence need not be involved.


In short would anyone resort to terrorism or does anyone know of individuals who have either planned or attempted acts of terrorism to fight against the NWO or any other perceived conspiracy.


Again, no. I'm of the opinion that terrorists are the dumbest, most desperate people in the world. There are better, smarter ways to accomplish their goals. Brute force and random acts of violence only weaken their causes.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
ok now what is the real reason we are over in the foreign arab nations? people this its is becuase we are fighting back becuase of 9/11. well maybe a little but why have we been over there even if the so called masterminds have been eliminated?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join