Please read this abc news item.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
The debate is about the possible reasons why this news item is not getting much of the media attention. What are the implications of this in terms of the current events.
We are not talking about conspiracy theories here. We want to talk about coincidence theories.
Your views please…
Thats pretty drastic and illegal. But I’ve heard of worse. There were plans to bomb civilian cities in Japan instead of military targets only. Oh wait, Truman was told they were only military targets. But what could he do with his signiture all over it.
I dont think plans would make us a terrorist nation per se. They have polans of Martial law and a FEMA government if the need arises but that doesnt make us a dictatorial nation.
If you wanted a more practical cause to tag us a terrorist nation you can go back to the days of Custard and what we did to the indians.
I think that a few brass wingnuts does not a terrorist contry make. You might be able to come to such a conclusion if all of the following events occurred:
Only then could you pin the “Terrorist Country” label and have it stick.
I still long for those halcion days of custard and creme, but it’s not true. You can never go back.
-Sorry, that was just too beautiful an image to pass up
What about funding the contras? Does that make us terrorist? No. It means we aided terrorists in the past WHEN IT SUITED US.
But it doesn’t make us a terrorist nation in and of itself. It means some people higher up were jerks who broke the rules.
This news is not getting much media attention because nobody cares about a bunch of half-baked crazy schemes thought up and never implemented 40 years ago.
Before you pat yourself on the back over having expanded the definition of “terrorism” to include any nation that attacks another, please understand that the terms “terrorism” or “terrorist” generally refer to non-government groups attacking civilian or military targets for political gain. When a government of a country does this, we call it “war”. When they do it in secret, we call it “espionage”.
I do think many of the proposed actions would have to count as “terrorism”. However, as reprehensible as it was for American military officers to even suggest stuff like this, I don’t think anyone has presented any evidence that these plans were ever actually carried out.
Nope. Please cite a definition of terrorism, war, or espionage that supports your claim. Here’s a standard definition of terrorism.
Under this definition, the plans linked to in the OP definitely refer to terrorism. No, it’s not war, no it’s not espionage. Since when does espionage refer to a government murdering it’s own population?
If you ask me, if the plans linked to in the OP had been carried out, it would be a crime worse than 9-11. At least that was a group (protected by a government) that killed innocents of another country who had previously attacked it’s leader. This would be a government killing innocents of it’s own country without provocation of any kind! It’s even worse if you remember that we are a democracy, and that our government is supposed to represent us, not kill us to further it’s own goals.
Since this never happened I don’t think we could be called a terrorist nation. However, the fact that it was thought at all about should make us very paranoid of the military.
Hear, hear! I knew these guys weren’t responsible enough to play around with live ammo and stuff.
I say! Someone should revoke their gun licenses!
Clemenceau (french prime minister during WWI) said : “War is too serious of an issue to be left to the military”
The plans referred to in the OP were signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then recommended to the Kennedy administration, right?
Should we really dismiss something like that as “half-baked crazy scheme”?
It’s simply not enough if such a plan is not implemented.
It should die after a 2 minute life as a cynical joke.
Maybe we don’t have to care about something that never happened.
But we should care about how long a similar plan could live today.
What mechanisms are there to make sure, it’s short enough?
One has already been suggested by Avumede: public paranoia regarding the military
Other suggestions?
Oh, please.
One of the greatest things about the U.S. is that even if these horrible suggestions would have went further, we have checks and balances to deal with these things. And I don’t for one second believe that a U.S. service man would purposely kill U.S. civilians.
Another great thing about the U.S. is that a book like the one quoted can be published and the author doesn’t have to fear for his life. In fact he may make alot of money.
The problem is the following frightening scenario:
Almost 50 years ago, the U.S. government overthrew the legitimate democratic government of Mossadegh in Iran. At the time, no one in the U.S. objected to it because we simply did not know what our government was doing. It took decades for the truth to come out, and finally the US Secretary of State (Madelene Albright) had to go public in year 2000 (over 40 years later) and apologize about that move by the US government back in 1953.
The problem is: what is the US government doing today (with all the backing of the US population to keep everything secret because of the rightful paranoia of September 11 terrorism) that we are going to find the truth in year 2035.
Are we being duped again in 2002 with manufactured consent, and our children will have to apologize for it in year 2040? What is going on, and why the populace is kept in the dark while totally consenting to be kept in the dark?
Does anybody here see a parallel to the Germans willingly supporting the Hitler’s views? Should we let the smooth Rumsfeld and company get away with it without thorough scrutiny? What could we be doing as a nation today that we could regret having done so in year 2040?
We “could” be poisoning water supplies. We “could” be revoking civil liberties. We “could” be doing all kinds of shit.
Stop being so paranoid about what the government “could” be doing behind your back and take a look at what they are in fact doing right out in the open. Our nations water is all fucked up thanks to weak legislation and enforcement concerning pollutants. One or more civil liberties get yanked every time I read the news.
Conspiracy theories are a waste of time. We have enough to worry about in the real world, though our problems are a little lest dramatic most of the time. Instead of chasing ghosts, attack a real issue (peacefully) and try to actually change things instead of ranting about the monsters in the closet.
**
If conspiracy theorists took 10% of the effort they waste on bullshit, and applied it to known real issues, the world would be much better off. **
Definitely a good point in regards to most conspiracy theories. But I don’t think the OP linked article, or the concern some have voiced, as being a conspiracy theory at all. The US government has done those things elsewhere. It seems as though some have even planned on doing similar things in the US. Both are facts, and both set a real precedent. So where’s the conspiracy “theory”? Sounds to me like you’re trying dismiss valid concern as something other than what it is. I’m not sure if it’s only limited to the armed forces or intelligence agencies, but both seem to have been involved here.
Cite?
Cite?
Ask the guy on the grassy knoll for a cite.
Obviously I was stating an opinion since “conspiracy theory” , “bullshit” and “better off” are subjective terms. If your point was that opinion has no place in debate, fine. If you’re upset about the 10% then you’re wrong because my statement would be true. Any effort to solve known real problems would make the world a better place.
Right here.
Without proof that the allegations in the OP’s link are actually happening today, it is nothing but a theory.
I’m not overly concerned about what** didn’t** happen forty or fifty years ago. It seems to me that the OP implies that the events of September 11th were a conspiracy by the US govt. , not foreign terrorists.
Wait a second …
Nobody is implying here that the son of the CIA director and a friend of certain energy companies somehow approved a plan for 17 Saudi Arabian suicide bombers to blow themselves off (thinking that they were serving Islam and going to heaven), crashing U.S. jetliners to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so that the budget surplus would go to certain aerospace or oil companies with total consent of the tax payer (forget the social programs). That is absurd, and indeed, nothing but a stupid conspiracy theory.
We are talking about coincidence theory.
The question is: what are we doing today as a nation so that we do not have to apologize about our government actions 40 years from now?
The real precedent set by the government was the refusal to enact such proposed policies on its own people. Rejecting bad proposals sets a good precedent if you ask me.
One Cell
Your disavowal of the conspiracy theory seems disengenuous. If in fact you believe it is absurd, then what “coincidence” are you referring to? Please be specific as to how the link in the OP is coincidental of any current events.