Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[Nibble]

Nibble, because you believe war is the answer for peace. Does that mean you are at peace of mind with what you think?

You presume to tell me what I believe? Goodbye.

 

[The Truth]

You presume to tell me what I believe? Goodbye.

But that's what you believe the war is right? A war for peace. I'm guessing there's a fair few on here who believe this too, otherwise they'd be all questioning the agenda of these wars?

 

[hybrid_x]

Nibble suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.


http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Either that, or is just numb from living in the narrow reality tunnel of TV land.

It can only be one or the other. The facts on subjects I listed are objective, and just because you have not found the objective truths yet does not mean they are not there.

Simple fact: No bodies were found at the pentagon, no engine found, CCTV locally was hidden by the FBI, the "crash area" was covered up with sand the same day.

If you dispute this you are suffering from CD (see above), if you do not know this then you have not researched enough. There is nowhere else to hide - and your pitifully sad world of subjective crap is a shield as flimsy as your mind.

People like you are dangerous.

 

[hybrid_x]

You presume to tell me what I believe? Goodbye.

It's not about belief, it's about intelligent discernment.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But that's what you believe the war is right? A war for peace. I'm guessing there's a fair few on here who believe this too, otherwise they'd be all questioning the agenda of these wars?

From the rebuttal link I posted

There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.
So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.

I think an awful lot of people believe the US started the conflicts in Iraq because they could. I think an awful lot of people believe that they went in to Afghanistan because they had to be seen to be responding to the terror camps there. Neither of these things are strictly for peace.

The first is a mixture of cultural imperialism, panic about giving a mad dictator his head, regret at not finishing the job at the first attempt and opportunism. Afghanistan on the other hand is somewhere that no country has ever really succeeded in conquering. The British couldn't, the Soviet's couldn't so why the US would want to - i.e. (again) to what end other than shutting terror camps - I really don't know.

Neither the second Iraq war nor the Afghanistan war are for peace. FWIW I disagree with the first but think the second necessary. History bears this out. The US also didn't need 9/11 as an excuse for starting the first because everyone on the planet knows by now Saddam and Al Queada were polar opposites in the Islamic world. The US did start the Afghanistan war as a direct response to terrorism. Real terrorism, that anyone with the reasoning power of a shrew can see exists.

 

[The Truth]

The US did start the Afghanistan war as a direct response to terrorism. Real terrorism, that anyone with the reasoning power of a shrew can see exists.

So you believe in the war is the answer for peace excuse too? Could you explain to me the difference between 'Real terrorism' and the US's current foreign affairs?

 

[Guinness Boy]

So you believe war is the answer for peace too? Could you explain to me the difference between 'Real terrorism' and the US's current foreign affairs?

I believe it's a good idea to have a military presence somewhere that trains terrorists yes. And that that's the only reason for it in an unstable, tribal country who's only real asset is lapis lazuli.

And to answer your question the difference is that real terrorism is illegal and undemocratic and what the US is doing isn't.

 

[The Truth]

Nibble suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.


http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Either that, or is just numb from living in the narrow reality tunnel of TV land.

It can only be one or the other. The facts on subjects I listed are objective, and just because you have not found the objective truths yet does not mean they are not there.

Simple fact: No bodies were found at the pentagon, no engine found, CCTV locally was hidden by the FBI, the "crash area" was covered up with sand the same day.

If you dispute this you are suffering from CD (see above), if you do not know this then you have not researched enough. There is nowhere else to hide - and your pitifully sad world of subjective crap is a shield as flimsy as your mind.

People like you are dangerous.

He spends much of his time calling people tin foil hats and nutjobs. Speaks for itself really?

 

[Nibble]

I believe governments lie to the populace. I don't believe crackpot conspiracy theories. Hybrid - X being a principle example of how they react when questioned. Quarantined from humanity? Please. Grow up.

I don't imagine you lot are out to cause harm, in fact I think you probably try to uphold some fairly admirable qualities. I think you'll enjoy the day you can portray these ideas without blindly following the other CT sheep and mature enough to incorporate these ideals into your life without calling for quarantine for those who disagree with you. You guys have quite the journey to enlightenment ahead of you. I almost envy you your ignorance.

 

[The Truth]

I

And to answer your question the difference is that real terrorism is illegal and undemocratic and what the US is doing isn't.

everything Hitler did, was deemed democratic and legal. It doesn't make it non-terrorism.

 

[The Truth]

I believe governments lie to the populace. I don't believe crackpot conspiracy theories. Hybrid - X being a principle example of how they react when questioned. Quarantined from humanity? Please. Grow up.

That comment really got to you didn't it?

 

[Nibble]

That comment really got to you didn't it?

Not so much. In my edit I have expanded and to some degree concluded my thoughts on the matter. The quarantined comment did raise my eyebrow for someone who purports to have human freedoms at the forefront of their agenda, but beyond that I will chalk it up to him getting too worked up about the subject. A slip of the virtual tongue as it were! But perhaps a little indication of where his ideals really lie.

 

[Guinness Boy]

everything Hitler did, was deemed democratic and legal.

Invading Poland?
Gassing Jews?
Invading the Czech Republic?
Bombing Coventry?
Invading France?
Gassing Mental Patients?

Not legal under international law matey and not what the Germans voted for. Hell, even suicide isn't legal. You're mad.

 

[Nibble]

everything Hitler did, was deemed democratic and legal. It doesn't make it non-terrorism.

No, it really, really wasn't.

 

[The Truth]

Invading Poland?
Gassing Jews?
Invading the Czech Republic?
Bombing Coventry?
Invading France?
Gassing Mental Patients?

Not legal under international law matey and not what the Germans voted for. Hell, even suicide isn't legal. You're mad.

No, Hitler was legally in Germany making the decisions. That's how it works matey. Do you really think Iraq was a legal invasion?

 

[The Truth]

No, it really, really wasn't.

You know best!

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

And to answer your question the difference is that real terrorism is illegal and undemocratic and what the US is doing isn't.

I have no interest in getting in to a binfest here which is why I've steered clear of this discussion but reading that last bit made me want to chip in with my own two cents. Just because it is legal does not mean it is morally right. The US is throwing its weight around but justifying its actions because they are acting within the confines of the law. That doesn't mean they are in the right. They are still killing innocent people and using fear as a weapon and a deterrent to achieve political aims. Sounds like terrorism to me albeit, legal...

 

[Nibble]

Hitler didn't come to power legally, no-one was fooled that he did. There was just a huge reluctance to confront him and engage in a war. You have really got to start getting your facts right if you are going to engage in this kind of debate.

 

[Nibble]

You know best!
View attachment 48104

Hitler passed illegal laws to do as he wished. In that sense they were "legal". Beyond that, they were illegal in every sense of the word. Now please, for your own credibility, don't get into a debate where you don't even understand the very basics of the subject.

 

[Guinness Boy]

No, Hitler was legally in Germany making the decisions. That's how it works matey. Do you really think Iraq was a legal invasion?

This is Rudolph Hess, appointed Hitler's deputy in 1933. Not a coward he actually faced trial and was imprisoned for life for war crimes.



And this is the Bush family. Who haven't been imprisoned yet.



This answers both points....