Authored by: tiny on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 10:06 AM GMT+5
A few weeks back, an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed
by car bomb in Iran. Initial speculation was Mossad did the
bombing with help or approval from the CIA. In the days
after, another theory was put forth by a commentator on
CNN that Iran killed the scientist.
Her theory was that he was a "moderate" not
towing the ruling power line and he was killed to send a
message to other scientists to stay in line. Also, the
Iranians figured they could finger Israel in the killing.
That sounds more plausible than this theory.
To junk a
ship w/ nuclear fuel in the Straits would jeopardize a lot of
oil that goes to the USA allies. Now, if you said the USA
were going to junk it off Somalia, I would tend to believe
that.
Yes, that does look like Matt Damon, maybe he is in on it
too!
Authored by: joeslin on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 11:10 PM GMT+5
Speaking of Conspiracies, the video part of this message is conspiring to be the stupidest film ever made. The voice-over is just that and unrelated to the video which is from the trailer for the movie "Battleship"... Yes, based on the game.
How to stretch a game of chance into a full-length movie is a bit beyond me but, there you go. For the record, I don't see Matt Damon listed as participating in this film.
As for conspiracies, I think people often confuse plausibility, bolstered by the fact that something has been written or recorded, with probability.
The goal of rational thought is not to find a better shepherd, it's to not be a sheep.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Saturday, January 28 2012 @ 10:14 AM GMT+5
I agree that this theory sounds a bit over the top, but I
have to say that Israel has done some pretty shady things
in the past, including the illegal attack and attempted
sinking of the USS Liberty, and attempt to cover it up and
blame Egypt. And anyone who looks at AIPAC honestly has
to know that the "Israel Lobby" is a very powerful bully in
America, usually getting its way with US foreign policy ---
a very unhealthy situation I might add.
I think the problem with conspiracy theories (or any
theories for that matter) is people who put their own
political or personal "agenda" first, and then try to retro fit
a particular theory into their ideological box, even if it in
doing so they have to swallow some unverifiable,
improbable data. An example is the whole 9/11 controlled
demolition theory, which has been so thoroughly debunked
as to be laughable. Many people who subscribe to this
ridiculous theory hate Bush and Cheney so they relax their
skeptical thinking to allow for the idea that of course Bush
and Cheney HAD to have arranged and planned (or let
happen with full knowledge) the events of 9/11. I didn't
vote for Bush and I don't like either Bush or Cheney, but
that doesn't mean that I think they had any plans behind
9/11 except to exploit it after the fact to go into Iraq, just
as they exploited the close vote in Florida (not pre-
planned) to get Bush into the White House in 2000/01.
Another example going the other way is the JFK
assassination. I think Lyndon Johnson was behind it, based
on a lot of good data from Parkland Hospital to ballistics
recordings to other data I have read over 30 years. But on
the other hand, I still can see how Lyndon Johnson did the
civil rights movement a favor by signing the Civil Rights
Bill into law in 1965. I liked elements of his anti-poverty
program too, before it got swallowed up by Vietnam
spending. I try to separate my ideological leanings from
my fact-checking where theories are concerned.
Sometimes the most obvious "it just HAD to be that guy
behind it" theories turn out to be false. I'm always ready
to concede when facts prove my theory to be wrong.
That's being an honest skeptic, putting agenda aside to try
to get to the truth.
Authored by: cgrotke on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 10:43 AM GMT+5
For those who don't watch videos or can't see it, the video
lays out an argument that the US and Israel might be
planning to start a war with Iran.
The plan they present says that we have an old nuclear
powered ship, the USS Enterprise, due to be
decommissioned next year. Video says this is expensive to
do.
It goes on to say that Israel has submarines and has a
history of sinking ships and having the blame directed
elsewhere.
Video notes that the USS Enterprise - old and ready for
decommissioning - has been sent to the edge of Iran.
Their theory is that this is in preparation for it to be sunk
by Israel, with blame being placed on Iran.
It ends with a hope that by sharing this theory, the US and
Israel will back off and not attempt such a thing.
Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack and not planned by FDR
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM GMT+5
Although I appreciate the creativity of this conspiracy
charge, and have no doubts that Israel is capable of really
corrupt things, including the 1967 sinking of the USS
Liberty (highlighted by James Bamford in 'Body of
Secrets'), like Bamford, I don't believe that 9/11 was
done by Bush and Cheney, and like Bamford and other
intelligence agency historians, I don't buy the argument
that the attack on Pearl Harbor was set up by Franklin
Roosevelt. The Pearl Harbor argument is an old far-right
wingnut charge from the Isolationists who hated FDR. The
fact is, the Roosevelt Administration was looking for
Germany to get us into war with a Lusitania style attack
on our North Atlantic Lend Lease, not Japan. What they
thought about Japan was possibly an attack in the Far
East, on Manilla Harbor or a far flung Pacific attack. The
Hawaii attack completely took us by surprise, especially
those in our naval intelligence.
If you want to look at a provocation to war, look at the
Gulf of Tonkin, which seems to have been completely
fabricated and set up by LBJ and his advisors to suck us
into a land war in Vietnam. Along with killing Kennedy,
the Gulf of Tonkin was engineered to draw the US into
Vietnam. Pearl Harbor is not a good analogy to use in this
Israel/USS Enterprise conspiracy theory.
Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack and not planned by FDR
Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 07:02 PM GMT+5
"This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of a military disaster whose name has become synonymous with surprise - the attack on Pearl Harbor. Interestingly, that 'surprise attack' was preceded by an astonishing number of unheeded warnings and missed signals.... An ultra-secret code-breaking operation, one of the most remarkable achievements in American intelligence history, an operation called 'Magic,' had unlocked the most private Japanese communications, but the operation was considered so secret and so vulnerable to compromise that the distribution of its product was restricted to the point that our field commanders didn't make the 'need-to-know' list."
Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Michie Stadium, West Point, NY, Saturday, June 02, 2001 Commencement Address at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point -- Department Of Defense Speech Transcript
Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack and not planned by FDR
Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM GMT+5
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”
Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, January 27 2012 @ 09:15 PM GMT+5
MYTH : The US carriers were hustled out of port just
before the attack, to "save" them for a war that FDR
already knew would be dominated by the flattop.
These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan
and the IJN, widely separated and lightly escorted.
On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl
and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west
and heading for Midway. source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/x33-050.html
"OK, but they were still out of port!" Yes, but Enterprise
was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA
was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next
time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started,
but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however,
close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at
Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by
"friendly fire." See the first document in this section.
What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth
is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on
Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule
promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved
to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to
coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be
known that the island had recieved additional air support.
The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes
had a "cover story".
MYTH : Pearl Harbor was not sent an urgent message on
the morning of Dec. 7th so as to prevent the fleet from
being alerted. Variations include using commercial
telegraph instead of military radio to transmit the
message so as to delay arrival of the message.
FACT: Atmospheric conditions prevented radio
communications between D.C. and Pearl Harbor. The
choice of commercial telegram, while possibly not the best
means of communication, was chosen for reasons given to
the investigations.
See the Congressional evaluation: http://ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_4.html#222
It is important to note that the message DID arrive in
Hawaii at 7:33 am T.H. Time, and was delayed due to the
attack. Why send it at all if the conspirators didn't want to
tip their hand?
Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, February 03 2012 @ 09:09 AM GMT+5
“The US government is so full of self-righteousness that it has become a caricature of hypocrisy. Leon Panetta, a former congressman who Obama appointed CIA director and now head of the Pentagon, just told the sailors on the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier, that the US is maintaining a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers in order to project sea power against Iran and to convince Iran that “it’s better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy ... Washington has kept America at war for ten years while millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes. War and a faltering economy have exploded the national debt, and a looming bankruptcy is being blamed on Social Security and Medicare. The pursuit of war continues. On January 23 Washington’s servile puppets--the EU member states--did Washington’s bidding and imposed an oil embargo on Iran, despite the pleas of Greece, a member of the EU. Greece ’s final ruin will come from the higher oil prices from the embargo.” (Paul Craig Roberts, “Drowning in Hypocrisy”, Paulcraigroberts.org: 01/24/2012)
