From their non-response to questions about Skull & Bones.
Yes, they probably will - not, they definitely will.
“We have evidence of bin Laden’s link to the 9/11 attacks. We’re not going to provide any evidence. We do have evidence. You can trust us. We’re the US government.”
:dubious:
Cite please.
Yes, I suppose it would be OK.
You would be no better then them.
That’s debatable.
Another classic behavior of the conspiracy theorist; equating technical possibility with probability. All the molecules of air in this room could, by random chance, move to the north side leaving the south side in vacuum. There’s no physical law preventing it so we have to keep it in the mix as a possibility.
It has the same value in a debate as a 3 year old repeating “Why?” to every answer. Kosmik has been using this one for as long as he’s been here.
Stop and think. Kerry and Bush both acknowledged they were members of Skull & Bones. Bush mentioned it in his autobiography, and Kerry weighed in publicly when the group was arguing about accepting women. They didn’t discuss whatever they did with the group (get drunk and prank other Yale groups), but they were not secretive about being members. Do you believe all college fraternities are attached to global conspiracies, or just the really famous ones? And here’s how secret the group is: for many years they published a list of the names of their members. Does that sound like something a conspiracy would do?
They will. I can’t guarantee that, but what the hell. Anyway, is your theory that the conspiracy let JFK make a speech about secret societies (which he wrote with a speechwriter) just so presidents would write more speeches with their speechwriters in the future? What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make? How would shooting him 2 1/2 years later accomplish that goal?
And again, the speech was not about secret societies. This ought to be obvious if you read the speech. It’s obvious even if you read and paragraph other than the “he said secret societies!” paragraph that conspiracy theorists go on and on about. So your theory requires a complete and total misunderstanding of the speech as well as the bewildering course of actions you are saying the conspiracy took in response to what you think JFK was talking about.
Who are you quoting? What are you talking about? Where did the U.S. government say or imply this?
Unfortunately every search I do on anything related to evidence for September 11th turns up enormous piles of conspiracy garbage. I can’t find a cite for the U.S. sharing its information about September 11th with its allies, but then again they would have had their own intelligence and it should be obvious they would have done so. Please explain why it matters that the U.S. did not let the Taliban put bin Laden on trial.
Marley, your S&B link is broken.
Either you’re covering something up, or they are!
:eek:
Or you are they!
:eek: :eek:
Or all of the above. Anyway I fixed the link.
Yes and they were both very circumspect in their responses. Bush quickly said, “It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.” Russert then asks a rhetorical question, “What does that mean for America?” After a brief exchange on conspiracy theorists, Russert asks an angling question, “Number 322?” to which Bush just shrugs. Kerry’s answer to Russert’s question was no better.
Yes, especially the “really famous ones”.
Yes.
I don’t know, but what the hell. Maybe they had Sorensen insert “the paragraph that conspiracy theorists go on and on about” for disinformation purposes.
Even if his speech was not about secret societies - what did JFK mean by, “and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”?
The U.S. government did not say this, they implied this. The U.S. government implied this when they refused to provide any evidence.
I found a cite, in today’s New York Times:
It does not matter that the U.S. did not let the Taliban put bin Laden on trial. That’s not the issue.
You brought up the issue. You provided the wiki cite. That was the exact point of the quote you posted. But you of course miss the point of your own cite.
That’s the good thing about having a “theory” that you don’t have to provide any evidence for. If something doesn’t fit or totally contradicts the theory you can ignore it or say its disinformation.
Here’s the quote from the wiki cite:
The Taliban demanded evidence. The US refused their demand. The Taliban offered to handle a trial in an Islamic Court. Why didn’t the US counter-offer with having a trial in a UN court?
And, again, the US refused to provide any evidence because the US did not have any evidence. Why is that so hard to understand? It’s like the US saying, “We’re not going to show you the evidence. How do you know we have the evidence? Well, we’re the US government. You can take our word for it.”
You just ignored a bunch of relevant points, and that makes me wonder if you’re really trying to have an honest discussion. Bush and Kerry had both disclosed their membership in Skull & Bones before they were asked about it. Bush wrote about it in an autobiography, and I think Kerry either sent a letter about it or made public statements as a Senator. In the real world, conspirators would not do that. Nor would it publish a list of its members, for that matter. And it wouldn’t let the press to call attention to it either.
That deserves repeating: You believe all college fraternities are connected to global conspiracies? Because that’s all Skull & Bones is. It’s a frat for blue bloods (and Bush was also in a frat).
Obviously. That’s because it doesn’t fit your theory at all when you actually take the time to read and consider it.
It wasn’t. There is no “if.”
Read the full speech and you should be able to get the context. He means the U.S. is an open society that is opposed to secretive societies (like the U.S.S.R.) and to secretive trials of accused political criminals, for example. He was saying the press should be circumspect about how it covers matters of national security, but the U.S. is a free and open society.
They didn’t provide any evidence to a government sympathetic to bin Laden.
It is the issue. The fact that they didn’t give evidence to a government that was supportive of bin Laden and had a longstanding relationship with him does not imply there was no evidence. You’re going to have to decide what the issue is and make a sensible claim instead of a bunch of inconsistent and self-contradictory claims.
Because they weren’t interested in negotiating with the Taliban on this issue. The U.S. demanded that he be turned over, and the Taliban said “what if you let us put him on trial even though we’ve been protecting him for years while he attacked your country and even though he supports our government financially?” He gave them a chance, but there was no reason to think they would honor any deal. Indeed, negotiating just gave bin Laden more time to get away.
Because none of your cites back it up, and it’s kind of dumb in addition to being inconsistent with your conspiracy claim. A conspiracy would have faked evidence.
Having a non-negotiable demand does not mean that the person making the demand is dishonest.
Your conclusion that the US had no evidence because it refused to haggle with the Taliban, whom we all know supported Bin Laden, is like saying that the US refusal to negotiate a conditional surrender of Japan is evidence that FDR planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Its conspiracy theory nonsense totally devoid of logic, evidence, or reason.
If I were to kill an Illuminatus (?), as you suggest is possible, if not necessarily moral, would I get his/her job? Kind of the way that eating a lion’s heart gives you its strength? Is that one of the typical methods of succession within the global power conspiracy?
But, Kozmik HAS thought about these things. He’s thought about them a great deal. You’re not going to trap him in some rhetorical prison or catch him in a contradiction and ‘snap him out of it’.
Not rationally or sensibly, he hasn’t.
That is most of the problem. He *just *thinks about these things, and has no tools to test his thoughts against reality.
In the real world, when asked about it by a journalist like Tim Russert they would not have given such identically dismissive answers, i.e. “It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.” and “Not much because it’s a secret.”
:rolleyes:
Talk about childish, even for Presidential candidates.
This deserves repeating: Everything is connected to global conspiracies.
And to secret oaths.
For secret societies, you give the example of the U.S.S.R. What would be an example of secret societies today? Before the U.S.S.R.?
It doesn’t? Why not? Whether or not one trusts the US government, how can one know there was evidence?
Not necessarily. Not really. Obviously they would not divulge their methods of succession, although you can think of the Illuminati as something like the Mafia and the Royal Family.
Good judgment.
Let DocCathode be the judge of that.
I do have a tool to test my thoughts against reality: The New York Times.
Good point! It’s childish. Which is not what you would expect a global conspiracy to be. With everything at stake I think the conspiracies would be pretty serious. The fact that these guys not only admitted to membership but gave that kind of lame answer ought to tell you there isn’t much to keep secret. They got drunk a lot, hung out with campus notables, and pulled some pranks.
I eagerly await your cites and explanation, because so far everything you’ve said has taken the form of ‘it rained on Thursday and there are 192 countries, therefore Anarch!’ None of your assertions are connected by logic or evidence. That’s the real problem here, and it goes beyond just being totally wrong.
I think you could compare them to any totalitarian or near-totalitarian country. They all tend to run this way. North Korea does, for example.
There has been a great deal of reporting on bin Laden and Al Qaeda and September 11th. It’s easy enough to read. You can even read the (translated) letters taken from bin Laden’s compound after he was killed.
You’re using it to expand your fantasies, to to test your thoughts against reality.
Kozmik, are the illuminati behind the assination of sniper Chris Rock, or was it that the illuminati tried but failed to prevent his assination?
Chris Kyle. And Jesse Ventura was behind it. Obviously.
Shhh! Don’t let the secret out.