Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Tea | Main | Legislated Evil »

The Most Busted Name in News

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Most Busted Name in News
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook

 

Comments

Funny stuff.

A couple of my friends have posted links to infowars.com conspiracy articles which suggest the government set up the boston bombing... and every other shooting that ever happened in the US, ugh. Does this group have any clever responses to stuff like that? Makes me crazy when intelligent people spread such nonsense.

Sigh, sad thing is I was expecting this. Every. Fucking. Time.

Yeah, an intelligent response?

People who suggest things like that have clearly never worked in large organizations. Humans are natural gossips. Everything leaks.

I think in this case CNN was a victim of two things. First, Their own stupidity and obsession with covering this thing into oblivion. Second, probably a racist FBI official that thought the agency should just arrest the Saudi-American that ran from the site of bomb one and figured he would create pressure to make that happen by telling the press it was already in the works.

Which I think is just evidence of how much people within the govt constantly fight with each other and are not a robot army of mass murderers.

Not that I'm advocating any of the Boston Marathon conspiracy theories, but I just want to respond to a couple of your points regarding conspiracies in general.

People who suggest things like that have clearly never worked in large organizations. Humans are natural gossips. Everything leaks.

I see variations of this sentiment frequently, but just because a few FBI agents or what have you are up to something fishy doesn't mean the whole FBI is in on it. Even within criminal organization like the MAFIA or the Hell's Angels or whatever, only a few members are ever involved in any particular plot.

Furthermore, leaks can be controlled or manipulated. If I were involved in some kind of government conspiracy, I think the first thing I might do is leak it to Alex Jones or Lew Rockwell or someone like that. That way, most people would automatically disregard it.

Another thing regarding secrecy: It's easier than you think. A far bigger problem is publicity. Haven't you noticed how hard it is to inform the public? In Chicago, there's a thing known colloquially as "Deep Tunnel," which is a massive storm sewer designed to take pressure off the local rivers in the event of a storm. It is a huge project that has been under construction since the '70s. It has involved hundreds if not thousands of workers removing hundreds of tons of earth and installing enormous concrete pipes, some of which are big enough to drive a bus through. The tunnel goes from the far southwest suburbs, under the entire city, and on into the far northern suburbs. And there is another branch that extends into the northwest suburbs. Until Boston's "big dig," it was the largest civil engineering project in the country. Hundreds of articles have been written about it in local, national and international publications. It has been on TV and radio, and there are websites dedicated to it. Despite all this publicity and the massiveness of the project, most Chicagoans have never even heard of it.

There are many other honest-to-goodness, scientifically proven or factually accurate incidents and phenomena that large segments of the public either don't know about or refuse to accept. So keeping something secret is child's play compared to publicizing something. Five or six crooked FBI guys bombing a parade is a piece of cake, which has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Emad Salem, the FBI informant who unwittingly gave the 1993 WTC bombers a live bomb instead of a fake one is one of many examples. The only reason we know anything about that incident is because Salem surreptitiously recorded his phone conversations with his FBI handlers and then leaked the tapes to the press. Nevertheless, that story was remarkably under-reported and remains unknown by the majority of the public.

I wish to stress again that I am not advocating any of the Boston Marathon conspiracy theories. There just isn't enough reliable information to come to a conclusion. However, I also wish to stress that automatically dismissing the conspiracy angle is just as much of a snap judgment as automatically accepting it. Conspiracies happen. And as I've noted elsewhere on this blog, it perplexes me how common it is, especially among lefties, to completely dismiss their existence.

I get your drift, but the conspiracy people are way out there. There's a difference between being skeptical and filling in the blanks with the most outrageous impossibility. I read a comment from one reader who didn't even believe that the explosions had happened. They believe that Aurora and the last school shooting were government setups to take away their guns.

Point: these people can be safely dismissed. One can be curious and skeptical and serious about a subject and research it independently, or simply decide it's not really important and forget it entirely.

It's true. As Robert Anton Wilson noted, "Most people cannot distinguish between something that is totally impossible, something that's plausible but not probable, and something that's probable but not yet proven. I blame that on the churches and the ignorance of the public at large."

I get your point. Conspiracies are successful all the time. No doubt, it is possible to pull off a bombing with one. In the cases like this through, you would not only have to have the bombers or their handlers in on the plot, but to some extent the investigators as well. Throw a few agencies and departments in and you are talking about more than a hundred people.

Can you convince more than one hundred people to cover up the murder of an 8 year old?

Certainly the Nazi were doing a fair job of covering up the murder of Millions for a time, but I think many, although not all cover ups will eventually fail. And holding out with the eyes of a nation looking for you is not easy. Take the tweets of Suspect 2 from Boston. He seem to be cracking and moving toward online confession within the week of being a part of these murders.

The idea that you would get at the very least, dozens of men with evidence of a crime to cover it up for years and decades seems unlikely

"The idea that you would get at the very least, dozens of men with evidence of a crime to cover it up for years and decades seems unlikely."

oh my goodness. you may be well versed in science but your history seems pretty lame. i certainly don't want to be "the conspiracy theory guy" anymore than anyone else here, but this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever seen written by a supposedly educated person.

"Can you convince more than one hundred people to cover up the murder of an 8 year old?"-

i personally could do it for less than 100 thou. there are plenty of people who could do it without actual monetary cost, using either carrots or sticks or both. again, if you really think this would be so difficult, i must question your logic, your reason, or even (possibly) your sanity. meaning: if you are as well educated as you pretend to be how could you even ASK these questions with a straight face?

I don't think its impossible, but certainly difficult.

I guess I should have been more specific here, because when applied broadly, yeah my statements sound naive.

I think these circumstances make a conspiracy highly unlikely. In the way 9/11 would have been impossible to pull off as a US planned conspiracy. This instance would have been incredible difficult to pull off.

Mostly on the fact that this was a white middle class boy. And maybe its too big an assumption, but the majority of the law enforcement investigating are probably white and middle class. And most likely raised in a fairly anti-murder minimally hate filled way.

Can you get some working class white cop to cover up the murder of an African American kid to cover his own ass, or soldier to cover up a mass killing. Sure probably fairly often.

Say, what you will. Humans are clannish, and its really hard to guarantee silence from even a small population when trying to cover up a crime within their clan.

Again, I think secrecy is easier to achieve than you think. And, again, the secrecy doesn't need to be air tight; it just needs to be secure enough to absolve certain parties of culpability. Think of the Iraq War, for example. Shitloads of people knew the WMD rationale was phony, even at the time it was being promoted by the White House. And subsequent evidence has strengthened that view. Yet there have been no congressional inquiries or trials. Why? Not because Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell and Wolfowitz et al. have managed to keep the affair secret.

In the '70s, the Church Committee hearings revealed, among other things, a CIA program called Operation Mockingbird in which the CIA placed agency-friendly reporters and editors most of the key newspapers and magazines in Europe and America. Doing so helped them advance US propaganda. But in this effort, they were decades behind JP Morgan, who managed to acquire at least 25 major newspapers by 1915, in part to conceal or "spin" its war profiteering.

GE must've done the same thing in WW2, because almost no one covered the 1947 conspiracy trial involving GE and Krupp.

"If you don't see anything about the GE-Krupp cartel trial in your local newspaper, don't be surprised. There's no one at most sessions of the trial to report it. One day there were two commercial newspapers and UE News; the next day, one commercial newspaper and UE News. Today only UE News was left."

And modern-day bankers, it seems, have perfected the art of media manipulation:

"Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game."

But the biggest weapon in the conspirators' arsenal is the public itself. People are scared shitless to acknowledge just how crooked their leadership is. They are in denial. The further back in time you go, the easier it is for people to accept the conspiracy angle. Few people have any difficulty accepting, for example, that the Reichstag fire was a false flag episode. And most people, I think, are willing to accept the scenario dramatized by Robert Graves in his novel I, Claudius, in which Empress Livia assassinated tons of prominent Romans, including her own husband, in order to clear the route of succession for her son. This is because no one alive today has a vested interest in the leadership of Nazi Germany or Rome. But suggest that Bush or Clinton or even Obama -- not to mention a local police department -- might be up to similar deeds, and you're a stone-cold fuck-nuts conspiracy theorist.

Those rank-and-file German citizens who poured blood on their flowerbeds knew -- or at least suspected -- where the blood was coming from, but they were in denial. They didn't want to admit their leaders were monsters and that they were complicit in the monstrosities they were committing. So they said, "hey, thanks for the blood" and quietly went about their business, the same way we do when we buy clothes made in Bangladesh or drive instead of taking the subway or what have you.

Convenience, denial, rationalization -- these are the principal weapons of the conspirators. And as a result, they don't need to keep their secrets very secret. We do it for them.

Yeah, but I think what you aren't taking into account is that when the cover up is not perfect, you then need the press secretaries of the Mayor, Governor, and president to deny the evidence it was a conspiracy. Further more you need you political adversaries not to make an issue of it. Sad statement about America, is that Killing one 8 year old in Boston would move quicker to impeachment that bombing tens of thousands of Iraqi children.

Sad statement about conspiracy theorists is that that they obsess for years over silly details that they imagine show US citizens were murdered by their Government, while there is mountains of reported evidence of millions of foreign peoples being, bombed, starved, and shot.

Yeah, but I think what you aren't taking into account is that when the cover up is not perfect, you then need the press secretaries of the Mayor, Governor, and president to deny the evidence it was a conspiracy. Further more you need you political adversaries not to make an issue of it.

Yeah, but I think what you're not taking into account is the fact that the mayor and press secretary, etc. are all of a like mind where generating fear is concerned. Even the would-be political adversaries see the advantage of ginning up the public's fear. Why, just yesterday, "ultra-liberal" Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, stated his support for no-fly zones in Syria.

As George Carlin pointed out, you don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.

Big Daddy,

That is crap. Syria is in a brutal civil war and being used a proxy by Iran and Russia. Helping limit the use of heavy arms against the population during the conflict is not Imperialism.

And I have met Keith a number of times. Every issue I have ever contacted his office about has been answered with a, "We are already with you."

Helping limit the use of heavy arms against the population during the conflict is not Imperialism.

Man, you've really guzzled the Kool-Aid on that one, haven't you? You don't still believe the Kuwait baby incubator story, too, do you?

"...starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran."

http://youtu.be/r8FhZnFZ6TY

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives