What is a Conspiracy Theory?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I'm curious as to what defines a Conspiracy Theory? I'm regularly accused of being a conspiracy theorist, because I have belief that every action has an opposite and equal reaction, especially when it comes to politics and the law. I have an expectation of seeing a paper trail to support a judgement/belief and a lot of times that doesn't materialize, or something completely different develops. When I point that out I get hammered with being a conspiracy theorist and living on the fringe. But what is wrong with looking for a pattern of consistency and holding up our elected officials to doing what they say they are doing, or producing some damn good reasons for doing what they ARE doing?

A perfect example is the military engagement in Iraq. What are the reasons for being there? First it terrorism and Iraq's support of terrorism. Well that didn't sell well at all. Then there was WMD. Well those weren't found and a lot of discussion has come forward that indicates the threat was never there to begin with. Time for a change in story. Next it was to remove a potential threat to peace in the Gulf. It turns out the Hussein was not considered a threat by anyone in the military of any country and the intel that pointed to that was so flawed that no one would take it seriously. Finally it's to remove a tyrant and grant freedom to the people of Iraq. Now this is something that doesn't appear to be true, or at least be working in any fashion, and is not even popular in Iraq. So there are four different stories that have floated out of the Whitehouse in regards to this action, and none of them are too believable. So what do you do?

For me I look at what the men in question have done in the past, their present connections, actions and their motivations. Based on the lack or plausible explanation, and the ever changing story, of going into Iraq the motivations come seriously into play. From this you formulate an opinion as to what the real motivators could be and base your opinion on the facts at hand. So what is wrong with this? It isn't like saying man never walked on the moon and that it was all a sound stage production (not much evidence to prove that at all, and where is the motivation to do it over and over again?). Its a common sense deduction made on the information researched and cooberated by the actions of those in question. To me it certainly makes a lot more sense than idly standing by and believing everything that comes out of the Whitehouse, especially when they keep changing their story. Its funny, but to the guys I work with, who do a lot of investigation, when someone keeps changing their story its normally a tip off to the fact they are hiding something or out right lying. So why is that different for the federal government? Why does noticing that immediately make you conspiracy theorist? Anyone? Anyone?

[Cube Inmate]

I think there was a movie on this once ... but geeeezzz the name escapes me . Obviously the movie producers weren't proud of the movie, and so erased my memory of it with a tachyon beam bounced off of Venus.

Sounds to me like you're simply suspicious of GW's motivations, and not suggesting that they concocted the whole thing from start (9/11) to finish (oh wait...it ain't finished) in order to take out Saddam. Like, for example, his motivation may have been to take out Saddam to finish his daddy's job, and he may have used the WMD excuse with the expectation that he might find them...but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy until it comes out that they planted some evidence of WMD and then "found" it. If that's the kind of thing you're suspicious of, then I wouldn't call you a conspiracy theorist...unless you're the one who publishes that newsletter that strangely gets left in my apartment every month...?

[transplant99]

Re-writing history only 13 years after the fact....this may be a first.


A perfect example is the military engagement in Iraq. What are the reasons for being there? First it terrorism and Iraq's support of terrorism. Well that didn't sell well at all

To who? YOU??

May I remind you that Hussein did support terrorism...in various ways. He housed and supported Abu Nidal, I will leave it up to you and your extensive book collection to figure out who that is. Also, is paying 25K to Plaestinian suicide bombers not enough to call him a terorist?

If not those two examples...is the fact he gassed his own people from a helicopter and murdered an estimated 750,000 Iraqi citizens not another example of terrorism?

Wow.

Time for a change in story. Next it was to remove a potential threat to peace in the Gulf. It turns out the Hussein was not considered a threat by anyone in the military of any country and the intel that pointed to that was so flawed that no one would take it seriously.

Really? Kuwait didnt see him as threat? Jordan? Israel? Turkey? You will have to point me to those particular quotes. I sure dont remember seeing them.

Finally it's to remove a tyrant and grant freedom to the people of Iraq. Now this is something that doesn't appear to be true, or at least be working in any fashion, and is not even popular in Iraq.

Not true? Not working? Which is it? Either its true and its not working in your opinion, or its not true at all.

Not popular in Iraq? Not working? How in the hell do you know? Lets at least let them HAVE an election first (first one in their history that if you dont vote for Hussein you can still live) and see what happens before we declare the whole thing a sham...shall we?

So there are four different stories that have floated out of the Whitehouse in regards to this action, and none of them are too believable. So what do you do?

You may want to go read the transcript from the speech's Bush gave on Sept 1 2001 all the wat to his address of the UN Lanny. He mentioned ALL these things at the time. No changes were made "afterward when it wasnt working".

Its funny, but to the guys I work with, who do a lot of investigation, when someone keeps changing their story its normally a tip off to the fact they are hiding something or out right lying. So why is that different for the federal government? Why does noticing that immediately make you conspiracy theorist?


Which makes your last paragraph moot. What stories were changed? The one thing you can hold on to is that there have been no WMD found....that much is ture. Beyond that nope.

[Cowperson]

The more people and steps required to make a conspiracy theory function, the less likely it becomes such a conspiracy exists.

A good rule of thumb.

People talk. Things get screwed up. Coincidences happen. Unrelated events look familiar with 20/20 hindsight. Some things work, some don't. Normal life.

The other thing we forget is our leaders are ordinary people in extraordinary jobs. They're usually not the brilliant conspirators needed to pull off multi-layered plots that would coincidentally also require the co-operation and secrecy of thousands.

GW Bush's biggest critics say he's an illiterate moron. Meanwhile, they ascribe the most elaborate plots to his devious and wily brain. Nice call.

Frankly, its easier to believe he's a moron.

We have people laying out a vast neo-con plot to control the world, spreading a blizzard of factoids across the kitchen table, dazzling us with detail . . . . . but then we're told they're too stupid to pre-plan for planting the evidence to support their obvious lies? How disappointing.

Again, its easier to believe they're morons. They certainly look surprised. Idiots.

The more people and steps required to make a conspiracy theory function, the less likely it becomes such a conspiracy exists.

My opinion.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not a big believer in conspiracies as a whole. I'm sure that happen, but not on the grand scale that your talking about Lanny.

The larger the conspiracy the more people that have to be involved, the more chances of a leak.

a major foreign policy decsion build around a conspiracy would never happen.

Look at what happened with the bay of Pigs invasion.

Or the attempted freeing of the prisoners at Song tay (sp?) those operations were confined to a very select group of people and thier were still leaks.

I don't buy into massive conspiracies, they're just not viable, especially for a government thats already under massive fire

[Reggie Dunlop]

All I know is that JohnnyFlame is strangely quiet on this issue.