How would you classify the hijacking of the Lufthansa aircraft in 1972 that freed the terrorists from the Munich Olympics.
Is that a CT or a conspiracy? Nothing has been proven as far as I know but it certainly seems likely that Willy Brandt and the German Govt were complicit.
I dont flat out dismiss them. I consider who is making the claim. Based on that credibility is whether or not I dismiss it.
Example
Im not going to take this guy too seriously
Interesting - a test of the definitions…
I think I had heard this theory ten or more years ago but know very little about it. I would say it remains a Conspiracy Theory in that - so far as a quick Google seach shows - no more concrete evidence has come to light. It is clearly not as incredible as some CTs - the German Government was known to do deals with external terrorists and I guess it would not involve thousands of people - but it does push the boundaries. Without knowing anything more about it my first question would be how did the ensure there were no women or children on thatparticular flight? Were the crew in the know? Were the 11 passengers?
Of course.
People in power are capable of engineering conspiracies (with the aid of thousands of other people) so vast and efficient as to change the course of history, but somehow are careless enough to make foolish mistakes that are exposed by dedicated conspiracy-hunters on the Internet. But that doesn’t mean they “screwed-up”. :dubious:
Can someone tell me what **newcomer **is on about here? Is this about Vietnam, Iraq, or 9/11? 
I saw the doco One Day in September which touched on Operation Spring of Youth and Wrath of God. They certainly indicated that Brandt had given approval. However, that is not proof.
I don’t know where it sits- maybe as suspicion which now seems as probable. It sort of fits as an agreement or arrangement rather than a deliberate breaking of laws.
I really don’t know.
Does this mean that you take State officials “explanation” as valid without reproach?
For example, when Collin Powel’s IRAQ WMD lie was broadcast on the news did you at any point doubt his word or perhaps examined the presentation itself or, as I think was most likely case for 90% of people, did you take him seriously because… hey, that’s US Secretary of State?
Are you putting a tinfoil hat on a strawman? 
I think if you actually read what dngnb8 said, you’d see your question is unnecessary. He said he makes judgments based on the credibility of the claimant and that some people (hint: Conspiracy Theorists) don’t have any credibility. He did not say he takes anyone’s claims as gospel. I note also that you’re using the standard tactic of trying to demean the story that has the facts and evidence by calling it the Official story or the Government story as if it was the imprimatur of the government that gave the story wide acceptance rather than the facts.
This is getting tiring.
As I elaborated in my example (to illustrate the power of State and its inherent hierarchy) regarding Suez Canal crisis where UK, France and Israel conspired to attack Egypt, you only had three guys including maybe PM’s and Army heads who knew of it.
All those thousands who were moved into action were only “doing their job”.
Who knows, perhaps you are one of those who takes State provided news report literally.
Despite myriad of examples – some small, some big - where State lied, deceived, conspired and even when faced with facts, flat-out denied allegations.
So, please, can we resolve that State cannot be trusted?
Exactly.
I may have more experience with it so I may not be as agreeable to State as you.
However, there is overwhelming evidence that no State is immune to it, they’ve done it before and they’ll keep doing it. Especially, in US.
Now, the question of what constitutes evidence is not clear cut as you seem to be implying. Take for example high-profile cases of alleged terrorists and the ongoing “legal” saga of military vs. civilian courts.
The way I see it – and many more, I might add – is that the choice of military vs. civilian courts is a euphemism for what the real question is – does State have sufficient evidence that can sustain investigative scrutiny granted by civilian courts or, should we hand it over to military court that, as we all know, does not have stringency w.r.t evidence of civilian courts.
The “State” thing is bullshit, and it’s not an experience question from what I’ve seen. Conspiracy Theories pretty much either appeal to something within you or they don’t.
Yes, but this is hardly a good example - it was certainly more than three people but accept it was a small number - the story of the conspiracy came out. Not a Conspiracy Theory within the meaning of the act. Conspiracy Theories always require no real evidence to come out - if there is real evidence its not a CT.
Protocol of Sevres was at one point a CT.
I think tomndebb already addressed this. Since you asked, going all the way back to page one on what a CT is and isn’t:
Nah. I only trust conspiracy-revealing websites like this.
This reminds me of Jackmannii’s First Law of Conspiracy Theories.
The First Law states that the more you express suspicion and distrust of governments, corporations and Educated People Who Don’t Want You To Know, the greater the longing that is created in you for something to believe in. The people or groups feeding suspicion and fomenting conspiracy theories (religious, political or just plain loony) are good at flattering their devotees (“you’re not one of the sheeple”) and providing reassurance that they’re looking out for the devotees’ interest. This makes it easy to sell products, services or ideas to the faithful.
There is nothing more blindly sheep-like and dumb than the typical paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Except, of course, the a-typical CT’ist who’s doubled down.
In the 1994 Encyclopaedia Britannica, there are two cites for Illuminati.
In volume 22, page 226:
In volume 26, page 891:
There you have it. The Illuminati was established in Bavaria by Adam Weishaupt and then there were cells formed in Milan, Bologna, Rome, and Naples.
Here is a Slate article on cells.
Uhh…you do know that Weishaupt died in 1830? And the Slate article mentions nothing about the Illuminati? Your references do not support your claims in the slightest. You’re grasping at straws.
The Britannica article mentions cells of Illuminati and the Slate article mentions cells. So…
I have several high school biology texts that also mention cells at length.
Basically, you are choosing to believe in a conspiracy theory because it has no evidence.
You have one reference (that you conveniently quote out of context) that says that the Church was threatened by the ideas, (not the persons), of the Enlightenment–a period that was generally considered to have ended by 1800. You have a different reference, (still conveniently quoted out of context), that notes that the Illuminati was one of several different groups that was promoting democracy and republicanism–the opposite of cabals or rulers.
So, barring any totally surprising new information that I know you will fail to provide, we are left with the information that you embrace a Conspiracy Theory that proposes that there is a secret society working hard to create more democracy in the world.
I hope you can sleep at night.