8 ms·

I'd say knowingly trying to claim an attack that did not happen is --not a false flag-- but certainly a govt conspiring to deceive "the people". Not sure what'

by cies 3y ago

I'd say knowingly trying to claim an attack that did not happen is --not a false flag-- but certainly a govt conspiring to deceive "the people". Not sure what's worse. And see the result: how many dead Viets? I recently heard a US TV anchor say "all civilian deaths since WW2" (they meant to say "US civ deaths"). The Iraqi WMDs were a similar hoax to get "involved". I never trust a word 3 letter agencies again: professional lairs with zero accountability.

jvanderbot 3y ago
I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just shoot anyway we need to be aggressive", and political officials portrayed that as "Attack" without proof. These are congruent accounts with different interpretations, and I tend to believe public speakers are opportunistic spin doctors, not world-shaping conspirators. As for "never trust a 3 letter agency", that's quite an extreme viewpoint. CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good, even if their findings can be spun ( or are even directed to be spun ).
- cies 3y ago
  > CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good What do you think is the good? Maybe the FBI to some extend (my point was quite a hyperbole I know). But under the line they mostly do bad imho. And they spin their own "findings", that's how we got into this conversation. I the plan was to invade Vietnam/Iraq, and the attack are propped up to "allow" then to invade. If you think they govt was deceived by it's own speakers, that to my is quite a stretch... The plan was to invade, and the story was made to match. That is a conspiracy in and of itself.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    If you're writing off CDC and EPA entirely then I think there's no common ground here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
genman 3y ago
And when Communists took power in Vietnam then exactly what was expected to happen happened - a large scale human tragedy with mass killings and torture and mass exodus. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who had murdered around 400 000 people - half of them after US refused to take him down after the Gulf War. Any excuse to get him removed was a good one.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The right time to take down Saddam was after the secind gulf war, the first one with US participation. In the first gulf war between Iraq and Iran, Iraq was an US ally. And no, removing Saddam with good reason was a really bad idea... To cut it short, in the frame on the war on terror 4.5 million people died, almost a million directly related to the war and 38 million people displaced. If you think all that was a just price to pay to get Saddam and Bin-Laden, because the Taliban pretty much won, you should re-adjust your moral compass.
  - genman 3y ago
    Why should I readjust my moral compass? Because people could not forget their feuds and started to kill? The system held together by terror was pushed out of equilibrium. They had a change to find a better one but they chose not to. If anything then US has done not enough by letting sociopaths in Syria and Iran still run the show - a huge part of the deaths (I'm not going to dispute your claimed numbers) could have been averted and not only in Middle East.
    - cf1241290841 3y ago
      Interesting >could have Do you have a rule of thumb how many deaths you are willing to accept and risk on what probabilities for which futures? Also, you used the term sociopaths, do you consider yourself a psychopath?
      - genman 3y ago
        It is clear now that Syrian leader was willing to murder hundreds of thousands of people, so were Iranian leaders. Moving against them early "could have" avoided large part of the Middle East casualties.

by cies 3y ago

jvanderbot 3y ago

I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just shoot anyway we need to be aggressive", and political officials portrayed that as "Attack" without proof. These are congruent accounts with different interpretations, and I tend to believe public speakers are opportunistic spin doctors, not world-shaping conspirators. As for "never trust a 3 letter agency", that's quite an extreme viewpoint. CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good, even if their findings can be spun ( or are even directed to be spun ).

cies 3y ago
> CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good What do you think is the good? Maybe the FBI to some extend (my point was quite a hyperbole I know). But under the line they mostly do bad imho. And they spin their own "findings", that's how we got into this conversation. I the plan was to invade Vietnam/Iraq, and the attack are propped up to "allow" then to invade. If you think they govt was deceived by it's own speakers, that to my is quite a stretch... The plan was to invade, and the story was made to match. That is a conspiracy in and of itself.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  If you're writing off CDC and EPA entirely then I think there's no common ground here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

genman 3y ago

And when Communists took power in Vietnam then exactly what was expected to happen happened - a large scale human tragedy with mass killings and torture and mass exodus. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who had murdered around 400 000 people - half of them after US refused to take him down after the Gulf War. Any excuse to get him removed was a good one.

hef19898 3y ago
The right time to take down Saddam was after the secind gulf war, the first one with US participation. In the first gulf war between Iraq and Iran, Iraq was an US ally. And no, removing Saddam with good reason was a really bad idea... To cut it short, in the frame on the war on terror 4.5 million people died, almost a million directly related to the war and 38 million people displaced. If you think all that was a just price to pay to get Saddam and Bin-Laden, because the Taliban pretty much won, you should re-adjust your moral compass.
- genman 3y ago
  Why should I readjust my moral compass? Because people could not forget their feuds and started to kill? The system held together by terror was pushed out of equilibrium. They had a change to find a better one but they chose not to. If anything then US has done not enough by letting sociopaths in Syria and Iran still run the show - a huge part of the deaths (I'm not going to dispute your claimed numbers) could have been averted and not only in Middle East.
  - cf1241290841 3y ago
    Interesting >could have Do you have a rule of thumb how many deaths you are willing to accept and risk on what probabilities for which futures? Also, you used the term sociopaths, do you consider yourself a psychopath?
    - genman 3y ago
      It is clear now that Syrian leader was willing to murder hundreds of thousands of people, so were Iranian leaders. Moving against them early "could have" avoided large part of the Middle East casualties.