Kent State shootings conspiracy

[skepticalcriticalguy]

This just in:

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/05/08/the-lethal-media-silence-on-kent-states-smoking-guns/

[JAStewart]

This just out:

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/05/08/the-lethal-media-silence-on-kent-states-smoking-guns/

[Thunder]

OK. So what? Oh, let me guess "the fact the governmant conspired to shoot the Kent State students shows that the governmant can be complicit in conspiracies, therefore we should accept that the governmant may be behind 9-11".

Yes, the governmant could have been involved in a conspiracy to create 9-11. But just because they "could have" doesn't mean they "did". And that fact remains, all the evidence suggests, they DID NOT.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OK. So what? Oh, let me guess "the fact the governmant conspired to shoot the Kent State students shows that the governmant can be complicit in conspiracies, therefore we should accept that the governmant may be behind 9-11".

Yes, the governmant could have been involved in a conspiracy to create 9-11. But just because they "could have" doesn't mean they "did". And that fact remains, all the evidence suggests, they DID NOT.

Ummm. This is the CONSPIRACY THEORY forum. Just because you are limited in your obsession to 9/11, that doesn't mean the rest of the class has to be.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

This just out:

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/05/08/the-lethal-media-silence-on-kent-states-smoking-guns/

What's your point in posting this? Please explain. Are you implying that this isn't worth reading, much less discussing?

Quick! Back to 9/11!

[Brainache]

So SCG, in your opinion, has there ever been a national tragedy in the US that wasn't a conspiracy by the government (or some rogue network of G-men)?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So SCG, in your opinion, has there ever been a national tragedy in the US that wasn't a conspiracy by the government (or some rogue network of G-men)?

I simply posted a link. I did not say I believed it. However, if what the article claims is true, then I'd have to say this one is disturbing. I'll wait until I hear the tape.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So SCG, in your opinion, has there ever been a national tragedy in the US that wasn't a conspiracy by the government (or some rogue network of G-men)?

A better question is: is there any national tragedy that you acknowledge could be the workings of an evil rogue element within the government?

[Rob Lister]

A better question is: is there any national tragedy that you acknowledge could be the workings of an evil rogue element within the government?

Watergate comes to mind, among others.

[Thunder]

The Civil War was caused by a conspiracy of thoughtless people who felt that human slavery was a good endeavor and should be defended with violence.

[Brainache]

A better question is: is there any national tragedy that you acknowledge could be the workings of an evil rogue element within the government?

Well they all *could* be part of some evil master plan, but I don't think any of them are. They all have various CTs attached to them, but to buy into any of these CTs you have to have a pretty loose grasp of reality and a paranoid mindset.

I don't count Watergate as a national tragedy, I think that was more of a politically motivated break and enter.

Now, will you answer my original question? Which US national tragedies do you rule out as being part of some Gov't conspiracy?

[Thunder]

Iran-Contra was a conspiracy.

[Brainache]

Iran-Contra was a conspiracy.

Yes, but I'm asking about those things like JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc. Those shattering national tragedies which occur from time to time and for which there is always a CT waiting to be born. They even have one about hurricane Katrina.

I wonder if the recent tornadoes in Kansas have their own CT yet? Something to do with weather control and secret Alien technology almost being uncovered by one of the victims, or something.

[Mobyseven]

People, to be fair o Skepticalcriticalguy, he didn't mention 9/11 at all in the OP, so there's no reason for us to bring it up either.

I don't have time now (I'm between lectures), but SCG - is this similar to the conspiracy PrisonPlanet put forward soon after the shootings occurred?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Watergate comes to mind, among others.

Typical stock answer. Now, do you think we got the whole story on Watergate? Did the government and media uncover the depth of the scandal? Or did we get a watered-down version.

Just asking your opinion(s).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Iran-Contra was a conspiracy.

yes, it was. But how deep did it go? Mean, Arkansas? Do you think they got to "the bottom" of it?

And what would you have said before the final reports? Just another CT.

[The Doc]

SCG,

Instead of speculating whether Watergate and Iran-Contra went deeper than we were told, a better thing to do would be provide evidence that they did.

To date, I have seen none. Which leads me to believe that, no, the scandal did not go deeper than we were told.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I don't count Watergate as a national tragedy, I think that was more of a politically motivated break and enter.



So just another little political prank that got found out? Nothing deeper, more sinister?

Has anybody here read Silent Coup?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SCG,

Instead of speculating whether Watergate and Iran-Contra went deeper than we were told, a better thing to do would be provide evidence that they did.

To date, I have seen none. Which leads me to believe that, no, the scandal did not go deeper than we were told.

I don't have time to present evidence tonight, although I think it would be a refreshing break from the tired old 9/11 backslapping that goes on here. A new set of evidence to be debunked and put to bed in a day or so. ;)

Much has been written, if you care to look. I'll try to put something together about it. I'll have to refresh my own memory some; it's been a while and names and dates and such have blurred.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

People, to be fair o Skepticalcriticalguy, he didn't mention 9/11 at all in the OP, so there's no reason for us to bring it up either.

I don't have time now (I'm between lectures), but SCG - is this similar to the conspiracy PrisonPlanet put forward soon after the shootings occurred?

You mean the Virginia Tech shootings? No, it's different. Basically that a tape has been analyzed, and the sounds of orders to fire can be heard, which contradicts the official (historical) version of events. I haven't heard the tape myself yet. Just thought it was interesting, and trying to help you guys get a break from the 100% debunked and put-to-bed 9/11 and JFK stuff. :)

[The Doc]

I don't have time to present evidence tonight, although I think it would be a refreshing break from the tired old 9/11 backslapping that goes on here. A new set of evidence to be debunked and put to bed in a day or so. ;)

Much has been written, if you care to look. I'll try to put something together about it. I'll have to refresh my own memory some; it's been a while and names and dates and such have blurred.

Awesome.

I look forward to it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The Civil War was caused by a conspiracy of thoughtless people who felt that human slavery was a good endeavor and should be defended with violence.

Have you heard Greg Hallett's lectures or interviews, where he breaks down the Civil War as being a creation of British Intel, to cause a huge war debt to British banks, which the US still owes on? It's dry stuff, but very interesting. No way do I have time to research and debunk it, because it's all about laws and treaties, and how the US was set up to be basically a plantation state of Britain. Google it; it's interesting. And a challenge to debunk.

http://crashrecovery.org/moneymasters/

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yes, but I'm asking about those things like JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc. Those shattering national tragedies which occur from time to time and for which there is always a CT waiting to be born. They even have one about hurricane Katrina.



Well, they DID blow up the levees. You should read this.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050912/12leadall.b.htm

It couldn't go to New Orleans, panicky city fathers told the Army Corps of Engineers; it would devastate the regional economy.
To save New Orleans, the leaders proposed a radical plan. South of the city, the population was mostly rural and poor. The leaders appealed to the federal government to essentially sacrifice those parishes by blowing up an earthen levee and diverting the water to marshland. They promised restitution to people who would lose their homes.


According to US News and World Report.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Awesome.

I look forward to it.

You could hop on Ebay and get a used copy of Silent Coup for a couple bucks.

[Slayhamlet]

Well, they DID blow up the levees... ...in 1927.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

...in 1927.

Yeppers, in 1927. Hmmmm.

[Slayhamlet]

Yeppers, in 1927. Hmmmm.

...in order to prevent floodwaters from devastating the rest of New Orleans. How perplexing.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

...in order to prevent floodwaters from devastating the rest of New Orleans. How perplexing.

But they did blow the levees. Sacrificed the poor parishes. I'll bet if the 1927 version of Louis Farrakhan had said "they blew the levees!" the 1927 version of the JREF would have said "WOO!"

So, you don't want to debunk US News & World Report's report? Come on!

[gumboot]

This is stupid...

The tape (which hasn't been analysed, by the way, or even proven to exist yet) supposedly catches (presumably an officer) ordering the 60 soldiers to fire on the protesters. That's 60 soldiers. Out of 1,000 on campus.

How on earth does that prove a conspiracy?

That's ridiculous.


All it proves is that company's commanding officer ordered them to fire. Nothing more.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

This is stupid...

The tape (which hasn't been analysed, by the way, or even proven to exist yet) supposedly catches (presumably an officer) ordering the 60 soldiers to fire on the protesters. That's 60 soldiers. Out of 1,000 on campus.

How on earth does that prove a conspiracy?

That's ridiculous.


All it proves is that company's commanding officer ordered them to fire. Nothing more.

-Gumboot

If it doesn't prove a conspiracy before the fact (which it might), it does prove a conspiracy to cover up. The history books say that students shot first. It's important, not ridiculous. (BTW, do you read Icculus?)

[gumboot]

If it doesn't prove a conspiracy before the fact (which it might), it does prove a conspiracy to cover up. The history books say that students shot first. It's important, not ridiculous. (BTW, do you read Icculus?)



The history books say the cause is disputed, they mention multiple versions of events, and they state that the legal conclusions were the soldiers should not have used lethal force.

Frankly I had always thought (before the tape came out) that the officer ordered them to fire.

-Gumboot

[Brainache]

I guess my question has been answered. SCG does indeed seem to thimk that every single major tragedy in the US (at least since the Civil War) is part of some grand conspiracy.

I can't imagine what it must be like to live in SCG's world. I mean how do you get out of bed and go to work if everything that happens around you is orchestrated by some shadowy puppet masters somewhere chuckling over the deaths of thousands because now their corporations will make more profits?

I'm no fan of big business or politicians, but I just can't see how the world could function if people like that were really running things. I've met a few CEOs in my time and the worst thing I could say about them is they are over paid. I suppose they could have been mass murderers, but really?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I guess my question has been answered. SCG does indeed seem to thimk that every single major tragedy in the US (at least since the Civil War) is part of some grand conspiracy.

I can't imagine what it must be like to live in SCG's world. I mean how do you get out of bed and go to work if everything that happens around you is orchestrated by some shadowy puppet masters somewhere chuckling over the deaths of thousands because now their corporations will make more profits?

I'm no fan of big business or politicians, but I just can't see how the world could function if people like that were really running things. I've met a few CEOs in my time and the worst thing I could say about them is they are over paid. I suppose they could have been mass murderers, but really?

I've met CEOs before too. Oh, wait; I am one! But I'm not overpaid. (Far from it).

Are the CEOs you met the CEOs of major defense contractors? Or major media companies? And if so, what do you really know about them?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I can't imagine what it must be like to live in SCG's world. I mean how do you get out of bed and go to work if everything that happens around you is orchestrated by some shadowy puppet masters somewhere chuckling over the deaths of thousands because now their corporations will make more profits?



And how do you get out of bed and go about your life safe in the knowledge that if any evil conspiracies do exist, the good government and the good newspaper guys and teevee guys will surely let you know?

Oh, damn; wait! That's a lot easier! Maybe I'll try that for a while!

[Slayhamlet]

But they did blow the levees. Sacrificed the poor parishes. I'll bet if the 1927 version of Louis Farrakhan had said "they blew the levees!" the 1927 version of the JREF would have said "WOO!"

So, you don't want to debunk US News & World Report's report? Come on!

Huh? What is there to debunk about the US News & World Reports article? There was a reason to blow that particular levee in 1927, and it was done with everyone's full knowledge including those who were displaced. The displaced were even compensated, although not very well, which is hardly surprising since this was the Jim Crowe South.

There was no reason to surreptitiously blow the levees in 2005 right after a massive hurricane had swept through and flood 80% of the city, including many wealthy and middle-class districts. You're pretending like there's some sort of precedent here which simply isn't there.

Quite frankly, I think you're besotted with the world of conspiracy theories.

[Slayhamlet]

And how do you get out of bed and go about your life safe in the knowledge that if any evil conspiracies do exist, the good government and the good newspaper guys and teevee guys will surely let you know?

Oh, damn; wait! That's a lot easier! Maybe I'll try that for a while!

Keep bitching about it on the internet then, you're obviously doing a hell of a lot of good.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Huh? What is there to debunk about the US News & World Reports article? There was a reason to blow that particular levee in 1927, and it was done with everyone's full knowledge including those who were displaced. The displaced were even compensated, although not very well, which is hardly surprising since this was the Jim Crowe South.

There was no reason to surreptitiously blow the levees in 2005 right after a massive hurricane had swept through and flood 80% of the city, including many wealthy and middle-class districts. You're pretending like there's some sort of precedent here which simply isn't there.

Quite frankly, I think you're besotted with the world of conspiracy theories.

Wow, you actually read the article? I'm impressed.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Keep bitching about it on the internet then, you're obviously doing a hell of a lot of good.

And why are you here?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Huh? What is there to debunk about the US News & World Reports article? There was a reason to blow that particular levee in 1927, and it was done with everyone's full knowledge including those who were displaced. The displaced were even compensated, although not very well, which is hardly surprising since this was the Jim Crowe South.


And, from US News & World Report:

On April 29, the levee at Caernarvon, 13 miles south of New Orleans, succumbed to 39 tons of dynamite. The river rushed through at 250,000 cubic feet per second. New Orleans was saved, but the misery of the flooded parishes had only started. The city fathers took years to make good on their promises, and very few residents ever saw any compensation at all.Same thing, but somehow different. Words are powerful.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

A precursor to Eminent Domain laws?

[Slayhamlet]

And, from US News & World Report:

Same thing, but somehow different. Words are powerful.

So you're telling me that this USN&WR article is advocating a 2005 New Orleans Levee conspiracy, simply because you see something vaguely suggestive in the wording (which to be honest I don't even see)? How the hell am I supposed to debunk something which isn't even there?

You know what? Forget it. Trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. But do have fun in your world chock full 'o' conspiracy intrigue and excitement. I'll put in a good word for you when the NWO ships you off to the Halliburton constructed FEMA death camp for not being a sheeple. How's that?

[Slayhamlet]

A precursor to Eminent Domain laws?

Eminent Domain laws existed long before 1927.

Have fun. Bye.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The history books say the cause is disputed, they mention multiple versions of events, and they state that the legal conclusions were the soldiers should not have used lethal force.

Frankly I had always thought (before the tape came out) that the officer ordered them to fire.

-Gumboot

How do you know so much about American history books? Especially some obscure (by now) incident as Kent State? I'd love to see your library.

Can you post a picture of your library? Or just name a few American history books That talk about Kent State.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So you're telling me that this USN&WR article is advocating a 2005 New Orleans Levee conspiracy,

I have no idea. I doubt that was their intent. Just reporting the facts. In 1927 they blew them up, but it's absurd, ridiculous and evil to think that they might have done it in 2005.

I'm not saying I believe they did it in 2005. Just pointing out that it's been done before. So maybe those who claim it was done again aren't so off base? I'm open-minded.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Eminent Domain laws existed long before 1927.

Have fun. Bye.

Well, we have some new ones now.

Thanks, I will. Bye.

[Mobyseven]

You mean the Virginia Tech shootings? No, it's different. Basically that a tape has been analyzed, and the sounds of orders to fire can be heard, which contradicts the official (historical) version of events. I haven't heard the tape myself yet. Just thought it was interesting, and trying to help you guys get a break from the 100% debunked and put-to-bed 9/11 and JFK stuff. :)

My bad, I misread the title and the OP...was in a bit of a rush.

I suppose my first question is, who analysed the tape? And what prompted this after so many years?

[Brainache]

I've met CEOs before too. Oh, wait; I am one! But I'm not overpaid. (Far from it).

Are the CEOs you met the CEOs of major defense contractors? Or major media companies? And if so, what do you really know about them?

Banks, Mining, Insurance and Media companies mostly. Don't know any more about them than you do, but I think it takes a bit more to succeed in their positions than unbridled lust for power.


I met Mikhail Gorbachev once, he shook my hand, he had very sad eyes.
I suppose rising to the top of Communist Russia, trying to liberate it and then seeing it being ripped apart by criminals will do that to a bloke.


And how do you get out of bed and go about your life safe in the knowledge that if any evil conspiracies do exist, the good government and the good newspaper guys and teevee guys will surely let you know?

Oh, damn; wait! That's a lot easier! Maybe I'll try that for a while!

If the evil conspiracies that you believe did in fact exist, they would reveal themselves. The world wouldn't be lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe the way it is, there would be some method to the madness. No one group is in control and they never could be, unless they had some way of predicting the future and controlling every person on the planet.

If you think such powers exist, then there is no way for anyone to convince you otherwise.

[gumboot]

How do you know so much about American history books? Especially some obscure (by now) incident as Kent State? I'd love to see your library.

Can you post a picture of your library? Or just name a few American history books That talk about Kent State.



US Civil Rights and NZ Foreign Policy Post-WW2 were both compulsory subjects in high school history. Both cover Anti-Vietnam War protests in the USA, including Kent State.

I also grew up reading all of my father's books, one of which was a very heavy one called "The Vietnam War". It was primarily about the actual war itself, but also had substantial sections on civil unrest at home, again, including Kent State.

I'm amazed that you think the shootings at Kent State are "obscure".

I live 10,000 miles away and I had heard about it by the time I was about 10.

You do realise that John Filo's photograph won the Pulitzer Prize and is often ranked as one of the most powerful images of the 20th Century, yes? LIFE Magazine have it amongst their list of 100 photos that changed the world.

-Gumboot

[Civilized Worm]

But they did blow the levees. Sacrificed the poor parishes. I'll bet if the 1927 version of Louis Farrakhan had said "they blew the levees!" the 1927 version of the JREF would have said "WOO!"


Well if the 1927 version of Louis Farrakhan was anywhere near as insane as our one then we wouldn't be wrong.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If the evil conspiracies that you believe did in fact exist, they would reveal themselves. The world wouldn't be lurching from catastrophe to catastrophe the way it is, there would be some method to the madness. No one group is in control and they never could be, unless they had some way of predicting the future and controlling every person on the planet.

If you think such powers exist, then there is no way for anyone to convince you otherwise.

Aha! Now you're starting to get how I, and many, think. It isn't one group with all the power. It does fluctuate. Coup after coup, the powerful criminal elite battle each other for more power, and the world goes from catastrophe to catastrophe. Coalitions are created, but alliances shift.

I know, that's just politics.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

US Civil Rights and NZ Foreign Policy Post-WW2 were both compulsory subjects in high school history. Both cover Anti-Vietnam War protests in the USA, including Kent State.

I also grew up reading all of my father's books, one of which was a very heavy one called "The Vietnam War". It was primarily about the actual war itself, but also had substantial sections on civil unrest at home, again, including Kent State.

I'm amazed that you think the shootings at Kent State are "obscure".

I live 10,000 miles away and I had heard about it by the time I was about 10.

You do realise that John Filo's photograph won the Pulitzer Prize and is often ranked as one of the most powerful images of the 20th Century, yes? LIFE Magazine have it amongst their list of 100 photos that changed the world.

-Gumboot

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that other countries would teach about this. I figured people heard CSNY's "Ohio" and wondered what it was about.

Honestly, I doubt too many American youth know much about Kent State.

[David Wong]

Well if the 1927 version of Louis Farrakhan was anywhere near as insane as our one then we wouldn't be wrong.

And if he was saying it with the same amount of evidence (or lack of).

[jaydeehess]

SCG, you are attempting to prove precedent where none exists. Your example of USN&WR article is not a precedent for 2005. During Katrina the levees boke inseveral places and flooded many areas including wealthy neighbourhoods. In the artcle you have full disclosure of the fact that the levees were indeed blown but for 2005 you have no evidence at all that they did not succumb to the forces of nature.

Back to Kent State, even if the C.O. gave they order to fire and this was subsequently covered up, what does this prove about the gov't IYHO? Not that the evil gubmint is more than willing to kill its own citizens, only that some in it will protect officers who have done wrong. "The government" did not kill those students. No more significant than the twisting of the Jessica Lynch story or the death of Pat Tillman.
Now , I had a 'discussion' with another who was convinced that Nixon himself ordered that the students be fired upon.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SCG, you are attempting to prove precedent where none exists. Your example of USN&WR article is not a precedent for 2005. During Katrina the levees boke inseveral places and flooded many areas including wealthy neighbourhoods. In the artcle you have full disclosure of the fact that the levees were indeed blown but for 2005 you have no evidence at all that they did not succumb to the forces of nature.



If you read the thread, you'll see I never said that the levees were blown in 2005. I simply said "the levees were blown," then linked to the article. Just playin'.

[jaydeehess]

If you read the thread, you'll see I never said that the levees were blown in 2005. I simply said "the levees were blown," then linked to the article. Just playin'.


yep they were blown about 80 years ago. Thanks for the history lesson, was there a point to be made?

[PhantomWolf]

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that other countries would teach about this. I figured people heard CSNY's "Ohio" and wondered what it was about.

Honestly, I doubt too many American youth know much about Kent State.

Some other countries aren't as insular as the US is. Admittly when you are as big as the US you can almost ignore the rest of the world, but you miss a lot of things. Having said that I suspect that NZers are among the best informed people of any nation just because so little happens here that we need to pad the news with what's happening elsewhere in the world. US and British history are well studied down this neck of the woods, the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luthor and Malcom X and such incidencts are the Bus Strike and the Edmund Pettus Bridge march are very well known. As are numerous anti-Veitnam protests, especially those at Kent State.

Just because you don't know anything about New Zealand civil disobedience events such Bastion Point, Motoua Gardens, the 1975 Land march, The 1981 Springbok Tour, or the 1951 Waterside Strike, doesn't mean we don't know your history.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Some other countries aren't as insular as the US is. Admittly when you are as big as the US you can almost ignore the rest of the world, but you miss a lot of things. Having said that I suspect that NZers are among the best informed people of any nation just because so little happens here that we need to pad the news with what's happening elsewhere in the world. US and British history are well studied down this neck of the woods, the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luthor and Malcom X and such incidencts are the Bus Strike and the Edmund Pettus Bridge march are very well known. As are numerous anti-Veitnam protests, especially those at Kent State.

Just because you don't know anything about New Zealand civil disobedience events such Bastion Point, Motoua Gardens, the 1975 Land march, The 1981 Springbok Tour, or the 1951 Waterside Strike, doesn't mean we don't know your history.

It's not that we want to ignore the rest of the world. It's just that so much weirdness does happen here, it's hard to keep up with it all.

Add in all the shopping we're supposed to do, and all the sports, and all the video games, and it's impossible.

Hey, do other countries have video games, sports, and shopping malls?

[LostAngeles]

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that other countries would teach about this. I figured people heard CSNY's "Ohio" and wondered what it was about.

Honestly, I doubt too many American youth know much about Kent State.

The Kent State Shooting was another driving force behind the domestic push for an end to the police action in Vietnam and Cambodia. The image of the young woman kneeling over the body and screaming is one of the iconic images of that era much like the image of the naked girl running down the road away from the napalm.

Sincerely,
An American Youth.

[gumboot]

Hey, do other countries have video games, sports, and shopping malls?

No.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

No.

-Gumboot

Yeah, we all run around in grass skirts and beat on each other with wooden sticks. :rolleyes:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The Kent State Shooting was another driving force behind the domestic push for an end to the police action in Vietnam and Cambodia. The image of the young woman kneeling over the body and screaming is one of the iconic images of that era much like the image of the naked girl running down the road away from the napalm.

Sincerely,
An American Youth.

Good. I'm curious; what's your age? (Answer off forum if you prefer).

[LostAngeles]

Good. I'm curious; what's your age? (Answer off forum if you prefer).

27 now. I remember learning about the Kent State Shootings when I was 14 and they were covered in my 11th grade textbook, while the Japanese Internment Camps were not.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Yeah, we all run around in grass skirts and beat on each other with wooden sticks. :rolleyes:

Please beat a little harder. :)

[Brainache]

Please beat a little harder. :)

I bet you say that to all the foreigners.:duck:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Please beat a little harder. :)

'cause, see, that makes the impending invasion easier for us. ;)

[gumboot]

'cause, see, that makes the impending invasion easier for us. ;)


I wouldn't try to invade us. If you thought Vietnam was nasty, you're in for a shock.

I would never want to fight a war against guerrilla forces in New Zealand.

-Gumboot

[stilicho]

Typical stock answer. Now, do you think we got the whole story on Watergate? Did the government and media uncover the depth of the scandal? Or did we get a watered-down version.

Just asking your opinion(s).
The Watergate scandal or cover-up or conspiracy was an event in the wake of the actual Watergate break-in. These two things are often melded together in the solitary term 'Watergate'. Why would one not believe that the burglars acted on their own but that the cover-up went to the highest levels of the executive branch? Is there someone other than Nixon you'd like to implicate in the cover-up?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I wouldn't try to invade us. If you thought Vietnam was nasty, you're in for a shock.

I would never want to fight a war against guerrilla forces in New Zealand.

-Gumboot
Vizzini (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001728/): "You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... "

[fuelair]

The Civil War was caused by a conspiracy of thoughtless people who felt that human slavery was a good endeavor and should be defended with violence.
Not really - it was caused by a group of thinking (not correct on the slavery part BUT) people who realized that Northern manufacturers were trying to put them out of business/drop their profits by attacking/raising the cost of their labor source. Had the government been clearly planning to reimburse them for the cost of the slaves and provide recompense for increased costs of production there would have been no logical point to war.

Please do not (not refering to Parky) bother considering I am being racist/pro-slavery here as I am neither. I am simply pointing out economic reality for the southern plantation owners. (I suggest thinking this way to see how it looked to them: "Hey slavery is bad, so I'll just throw all my slaves out, hire a bunch of white guys for way more than I "paid " my slavesor share-crop my fields, lose all my profit plus a bunch and take my family to the poorhouse with head held high!!! That's the ticket!!)

[jaydeehess]

You do realise that John Filo's photograph won the Pulitzer Prize and is often ranked as one of the most powerful images of the 20th Century, yes? LIFE Magazine have it amongst their list of 100 photos that changed the world.

-Gumboot


I first saw that picture IIRC when is was on the front page of the newspaper delivered to my home when I was in high school.

obscure?? maybe to a 20 year old, not to anyone over 50

[jaydeehess]

Not really - it was caused by a group of thinking (not correct on the slavery part BUT) people who realized that Northern manufacturers were trying to put them out of business/drop their profits by attacking/raising the cost of their labor source. Had the government been clearly planning to reimburse them for the cost of the slaves and provide recompense for increased costs of production there would have been no logical point to war.

Please do not (not refering to Parky) bother considering I am being racist/pro-slavery here as I am neither. I am simply pointing out economic reality for the southern plantation owners. (I suggest thinking this way to see how it looked to them: "Hey slavery is bad, so I'll just throw all my slaves out, hire a bunch of white guys for way more than I "paid " my slavesor share-crop my fields, lose all my profit plus a bunch and take my family to the poorhouse with head held high!!! That's the ticket!!)


That is completely over the head of persons with no sense of the complexity of the causes of the American Civil War(or most wars for that matter). They expect that there is one solid cause for a war and simplify it to single paragraph, even single sentence descriptions such as , "it was caused by the South's use of slavery".

It is indeed fact that the Southern States declared war not to defend slavery but because of a long struggle against economic decisions made elsewhere that was effectively killing the economic viability of those states. The move to abolish slavery was simply one of those decisions and had it been followed up by the Federal gov't offering compensation and other measures by which the south would obtain a growing rather than shrinking economy, the war could have been avoided AND slavery abolished. Gee, seems to me that that would have been the less expensive way to go but then I have the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of just what the economic and human toll of the Civil War was.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy
Hey, do other countries have video games, sports, and shopping malls?
No.

-Gumboot


Canada always gets overlooked <<sighs>>

We have video games such as "igloo tank command"
sports like hockey
and the West Edmonton Mall

:D

[jaydeehess]

As a Canadian who was 16 in 1972 I believe that I probably know as much about the Vietnam War and the ensuing the civil torment in the USA as most americans. The one thing I would not know a lot about is the pain of having young, conscripted, men from my town dieing halfway around the world. I do have some small sense of what that is like now though. My town, with a population of 15,000, has had one young man from here who was KIA in Afghanistan.

[Civilized Worm]

The Watergate scandal or cover-up or conspiracy was an event in the wake of the actual Watergate break-in. These two things are often melded together in the solitary term 'Watergate'. Why would one not believe that the burglars acted on their own but that the cover-up went to the highest levels of the executive branch? Is there someone other than Nixon you'd like to implicate in the cover-up?


It seems even Watergate isn't conspiracy enough for these people.

[jaydeehess]

It seems even Watergate isn't conspiracy enough for these people.


Hmmm, how about Iran-Contra?

One thing that struck me as so very very odd concerning Iran-Contra was that Americans were so very obcessed with the fact that the money went to the Contras. Yes, that was bad, yes, it was counter to the expressed wish of congress BUT the money came from the sale of weapons to the Iranians. The very same Iranians who had held Americans hostage for over a year. The very same Iranians who by kidnapping those Americans from what is considered American territory, the embassy, had committed an act of war! Yet no one really seemed all that concerned that the perpetrators had been doing business with Iran.

[VespaGuy]

That is completely over the head of persons with no sense of the complexity of the causes of the American Civil War(or most wars for that matter). They expect that there is one solid cause for a war and simplify it to single paragraph, even single sentence descriptions such as , "it was caused by the South's use of slavery".

It is indeed fact that the Southern States declared war not to defend slavery but because of a long struggle against economic decisions made elsewhere that was effectively killing the economic viability of those states. The move to abolish slavery was simply one of those decisions and had it been followed up by the Federal gov't offering compensation and other measures by which the south would obtain a growing rather than shrinking economy, the war could have been avoided AND slavery abolished. Gee, seems to me that that would have been the less expensive way to go but then I have the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of just what the economic and human toll of the Civil War was.

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Hmmm, how about Iran-Contra?

One thing that struck me as so very very odd concerning Iran-Contra was that Americans were so very obcessed with the fact that the money went to the Contras. Yes, that was bad, yes, it was counter to the expressed wish of congress BUT the money came from the sale of weapons to the Iranians. The very same Iranians who had held Americans hostage for over a year. The very same Iranians who by kidnapping those Americans from what is considered American territory, the embassy, had committed an act of war! Yet no one really seemed all that concerned that the perpetrators had been doing business with Iran.

Many were concerned. Especially in light of the fact that we were supposed to be backing Saddam Hussein's Iraq in that war.

The ol' make-a-killing-by-arming-both-sides trick! (And they got caught!) Gotta love America's cajones, no?

[jaydeehess]

hyperbole on my part. Yes there were those who saw the worst transgression as being that of selling anti-tank missiles to Iran but the greatest amount of discussion concerned the money to the Contras.

Of course Reagan claimed it was less than a whole planeload in total. the price Iran paid was also close to 100% more than anyone else would have paid for the same weapons. So I guess that showed the Iranians who was boss. The admin explanation was that with this sale Iran would put pressure on Hezbollah to release hostages they were holding. Good work again, it resulted in 3 of 30 being released.

So, SCG you do see that others are willing to see conspiracies do you not?

[fuelair]

That is completely over the head of persons with no sense of the complexity of the causes of the American Civil War(or most wars for that matter). They expect that there is one solid cause for a war and simplify it to single paragraph, even single sentence descriptions such as , "it was caused by the South's use of slavery".

It is indeed fact that the Southern States declared war not to defend slavery but because of a long struggle against economic decisions made elsewhere that was effectively killing the economic viability of those states. The move to abolish slavery was simply one of those decisions and had it been followed up by the Federal gov't offering compensation and other measures by which the south would obtain a growing rather than shrinking economy, the war could have been avoided AND slavery abolished. Gee, seems to me that that would have been the less expensive way to go but then I have the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of just what the economic and human toll of the Civil War was.Well, I just assume (and hope) that it is not above the heads of members of this forum -I do sort of simplify certain things, but not most if I can keep it accurate and comparatively short.:)

[PhantomWolf]

Many were concerned. Especially in light of the fact that we were supposed to be backing Saddam Hussein's Iraq in that war.

The ol' make-a-killing-by-arming-both-sides trick! (And they got caught!) Gotta love America's cajones, no?

Only the US never sold weapons to Iraq. They gave Saddam satellite images showing the placement of the Iranian troops and positions allowing him to know how to move his own troops and strike or defend. One could make an argument that this was actually worse. By arming both sides and saying, "go to it" the war would have been over pretty quick. By supplying Saddam with the intelligence they did, the war was perpetuated on for far longer than it needed to be.

[PhantomWolf]

The Kent State Shooting was another driving force behind the domestic push for an end to the police action in Vietnam and Cambodia. The image of the young woman kneeling over the body and screaming is one of the iconic images of that era much like the image of the naked girl running down the road away from the napalm.

Sincerely,
An American Youth.

For those under 20 that don't know these two images:

Kent State Shootings (http://www.uiowa.edu/policult/assets/VietNam/KentState.jpg)
Napalming of Trang Bang by the VNAF (http://www.iraqwar.co.uk/kimphuc2.jpg)

Warning: Both images are graphic

Note: Unlike a lot of people think, Trang Bang was actually bombed by the Veitnam Air Force in an all Veitnese battle. The village itself was not a target in the attack, which was against North Veitnese defenses outside of the village, but seeing a group of people moving towards their positions, the ARVN troops called in the airstrike thinking they were enemy troops. Unfortunately they weren't,they were villagers attempting to flee the battle, and the image is the result of that attack.

[Hutch]

I have to contribute to this thread, because I attended Kent State University right after that (Sept 1971-June 1975, BS in Education-Cum Laude).

The article points out that Big Jijm Rhodes was a buffoun (which even many Ohioans knew in 1970), but shows no link between him and the order given to shoot. Lots of supposition and innuendo, but nothing concrete.

I have some doubts about that microphone, too. I used to walk from my Clark Hall dorm to classes in the front of Campus and passed that spot quite often. The nearest dorms were quite a distance away and nearer the students than the Guardsmen. Taylor Hall (the building the Guardsmen are next too in the photographs) is not a dormitory (it was the Media and News Teaching Building at the time, IIRC). I have some serious doubts that a microphone from 1970 could have picked up something like that from more than 100 yards away.

Also, the students were not peaceful, they were not dispersing, and as the Guardsmen (not 60 but nearer 10-15) moved back up towards the top of Taylor Hill, the crowd was following them.

Most of the Guard were young, tired, and scared. That someone said what has been reported may actually have happened, as far as I know; but it was a local act born of weariness, anger, fear, and disorganization...not conspiracy.

That a tragedy happened is beyond doubt; that it was deliberately ordered by the Governor/White House/NWO needs substantially more proof than the big mouth comments of James Rhodes.

IMHO as always.

(note--I cannot access from work, so any questions will not be answered for awhile).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Of course Reagan claimed it was less than a whole planeload in total.

Of course.

the price Iran paid was also close to 100% more than anyone else would have paid for the same weapons. So I guess that showed the Iranians who was boss.

I guess so.

The admin explanation was that with this sale Iran would put pressure on Hezbollah to release hostages they were holding. Good work again, it resulted in 3 of 30 being released.

Yes, good work!

So, SCG you do see that others are willing to see conspiracies do you not?

No, I do not. Not even close.

You left out the part about Bush Sr. and Casey meeting with Iranian officials in France to negotiate the holding of the hostages to ensure Reagan's election over Carter, with the weapons exchange as part of the deal. See Gary Sick's (former NSA) books 'All Fall Down' and 'October Surprise'. Get back to me when you're done reading them.

(Iranian President Bani-Sadr confirms that these meetings took place).

[jaydeehess]

No, I do not. Not even close.

You left out the part about Bush Sr. and Casey meeting with Iranian officials in France to negotiate the holding of the hostages to ensure Reagan's election over Carter, with the weapons exchange as part of the deal. See Gary Sick's (former NSA) books 'All Fall Down' and 'October Surprise'. Get back to me when you're done reading them.

(Iranian President Bani-Sadr confirms that these meetings took place).


OMFG, because I did not include every single solitary , miniscule detail, and because I did not include details in dispute, you assume that I am not truly able to discern a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!

Iran-Contra was indeed a conspiracy to commit several crimes. Now you are whining and unable to take 'yes' for an answer.:boggled:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OMFG, because I did not include every single solitary , miniscule detail, and because I did not include details in dispute, you assume that I am not truly able to discern a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!

Iran-Contra was indeed a conspiracy to commit several crimes. Now you are whining and unable to take 'yes' for an answer.:boggled:

OK then, welcome to the world of woo.

Do you think Iran-Contra lead to Mena? Barry Seal? Weapons out - drugs in?

[gumboot]

You left out the part about Bush Sr. and Casey meeting with Iranian officials in France to negotiate the holding of the hostages to ensure Reagan's election over Carter, with the weapons exchange as part of the deal. See Gary Sick's (former NSA) books 'All Fall Down' and 'October Surprise'. Get back to me when you're done reading them.


There's actually no evidence that October Surprise ever occurred.

French Intelligence (whom, according to the media reports, were the ones who said it happened) deny it having occurred. You shouldn't believe everything you read in the media.

-Gumboot

[slingblade]

And how do you get out of bed and go about your life safe in the knowledge that if any evil conspiracies do exist, the good government and the good newspaper guys and teevee guys will surely let you know?


I don't get out of my bed and go about my life with any assurances whatsoever that I'm "safe." How childish a belief is that?

To a certain extent, I'm as safe as I try to be. I look both ways before crossing the street, make sure I unplug the coffee maker every morning, and change the filters in my heater every fall.

I do depend in a limited way on others to make me safe, but I've seen them fail now and then, so I know they aren't infallible. I know the safety provided by others is no guarantee I'll be safe.

In point of fact, there is no such thing. You can improve your odds sometimes, but in reality, you are never safe. I can't believe there are actually people who think they can be somehow made safe, or that the expression itself has any real meaning. It makes me laugh, in a kind of sad way.

No, I don't depend on the government or the media to inform me about everything I probably would want to know about. But I'm not sure I would care about conspiracies in general--of the classic ones people tend to discuss, I can't see how any of them have really impacted my life in particular. So, I can't see why I'd really care until and if one does.

How, specifically, have any conspiracies impacted your life, SCG? Why do they worry you?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

There's actually no evidence that October Surprise ever occurred.



That would depend on your definition of 'evidence.'

Have you read Gary Sick's books? I read them about 10 years ago; very interesting stuff in them about the workings of Carter's NSC (I think I mistakenly said NSA in an earlier post).

http://www.amazon.com/All-Fall-Down-Americas-Encounter/dp/0595202535/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/002-5874689-8547231?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178889524&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5874689-8547231?ie=UTF8&qid=1178889524&sr=8-5

[gumboot]

That would depend on your definition of 'evidence.'

Have you read Gary Sick's books? I read them about 10 years ago; very interesting stuff in them about the workings of Carter's NSC (I think I mistakenly said NSA in an earlier post).

Well let's see...


The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".


The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign---or persons associated with the campaign---to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992, and concluded that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. According to Snepp, not one of Sick’s sources had any direct knowledge of the alleged plot. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone, who refused to turn it into a movie. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp asserts that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting.


magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately.

Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.

Sources all available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy).

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

OK then, welcome to the world of woo.

Do you think Iran-Contra lead to Mena? Barry Seal? Weapons out - drugs in?

You asked:

A better question is: is there any national tragedy that you acknowledge could be the workings of an evil rogue element within the government?

Watergate was mentioned. Not good enough you said. Then Iran-Contra was brought up. That makes two conspiracies that many here believe occured but that's just not good enough for you. You then bring up details surrounding I-C that are in dispute and have been debunked before and if we don't reject that debunking and accept the conspiracy within the conspiracy you tell us we are hiding our heads.

Do I have this correct then SCG? Do we lack something that you posess? I think we do, its called paranoia.

Just for the record, I do not believe that the gov't had the levees demolished during Katrina nor do I believe that federal assistance to the victims was deliberatly with held. I do not believe that Rooseveldt(SP?) knew the exact time of the Japanese attack nor in any way willing allowed it to occur. I do not believe that anyone actually gave the order to fire upon the students at Kent State let alone that the order came from higher levels of gov't. I believe that L.H.Oswald acted alone and killed JFK.

I believe all of this because any evidence to the contrary does not stand up to further investigation. You have no evidence that the levees were blown during Katrina, there is no evidence that the Pearl Harbor attacks were allowed to occur deliberatly, there is no credible evidence at all that the order to shoot came from higher levels of gov't nor is there credible evidence that the C.O. gave the order and the JFK assaination can indeed be explained by the actions of one man in the Texas book depository with a gun.

The "Maine" was likely an accident that was jumped upon as an excuse to do what was desired, Iran-Contra was a conspiracy to commit several crimes, so was Watergate, the Tonkin affair may have been falsly generated but it is just as likely it was a malfunction of the C3I that was jumped upon by a Presient eagar to ramp up involvement in Veitnam.

[robinson]

Note: Unlike a lot of people think, Trang Bang was actually bombed by the Veitnam Air Force in an all Veitnese battle. The village itself was not a target in the attack, which was against North Veitnese defenses outside of the village, but seeing a group of people moving towards their positions, the ARVN troops called in the airstrike thinking they were enemy troops. Unfortunately they weren't,they were villagers attempting to flee the battle, and the image is the result of that attack.

That flatly goes against the official story. Can you provide evidence?

[Slayhamlet]

Well let's see...











Sources all available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy).

-Gumboot

But those guys were all shills! (even the ones who were part of the political opposition)