Terrorist Conspiracies

Ive been thinking recently about people that have made out the WTC/Pentagaon/Madrid and now London attacks to be some sort of Governmental conspiracy. I have now come to the conclusion that these people or some of them are actually scared of an outside force attacking not only their country but civilian areas. This is because it puts them in danger personally. So to take away some of that fear they try to put the blame of these attacks onto their own Government. This is done, in my eyes, because its easier for them to think their government are doing these attacks as the Government can be voted out if you put enough frighteners into people.

I especially think this of the American conspiracy makers because in Briatin there has been IRA attacks for 30 years and people just accepted what was happening and that the govenment would sort the problem one day whereas the US for the first time has found itself not to be safe from outside terrorist attacks and has found itself drawn into a war where they are the forerunners of it. Unlike in WWI and WWII where they first has an isolationist policy because it was seen as a European problem and then entered the Wars after several years.

sounds good to me.

and since this board won't let me just add a few words to agree with you, i am writing more just to make my word count sufficient for posting.

That's strange, because I wasn't even worried when the events were just taking place, let alone scared years afterwards.

I was just surfing around one day and happened to come across the information, and read it through without any bias one way or the other really, and lo and behold! Apparently I somehow became frightened of the events that had took place years earlier, after they had taken place, when I wasn't even frightened to begin with. That makes about as much sense to me as the Bible, which isn't much I'm afraid. I say this knowing you'll probably dimiss me by telling me that I was afraid, as if you know my emotional past better than I do, or that you suspect I'm lying right now (as if I would have any reason to) or some such bs.

At any rate, a threat from within your own country seems to me as if it would frighten someone more than a threat originating from halfway across the world. In my opinion, it seems as though you just cling a little too tightly to your preconvictions, and then try to justify yourself, in your insecurity, by attacking the justifications and supposed underlying psychological states of those that oppose your way of thinking. We can make assumptions on each others' underlying motivations all day. I suppose that's why there are other threads in which to debate the physical evidence of things like 9/11. That seems like it would be logical to do, before going around and arrogantly diagnosing psychological issues to masses of people. Btw, I wasn't alive during either of those wars.

I totally agree with you bsbray11.

When 9/11 happened, i thought it was horrible and that terrorists were to blame and everything was in black and white. That was until i found questions, questions that either had illogical answers or none at all. There are too many things that don't add up for me from what i have seen to soley have been the work of terrorists.

Believe me, it was alot easier when i thought these things were clear cut, but as the site reminds us every time we log on, we must deny ignorance.

the real scary thing is that the governments are the real bad guys, and people that know that live with that knowledge forever because the governments never go away.
ignorant people think threats come and go, from outside sources, but they never connect the dots between events happening and the benefits to governemnt plans before they happened.
Its a case of hypnotism, becasue in their world view, the govenrment never does anything illegal and in fact is always acting in the peoples best interest to protect them, so no matter what happens or how obvious it is, people cannot see it, because to do so would radically alter their world view entirely.
The only people that really see it are those who have already had some experience first hand of the types of evil people that gravitate towards power.

What conspiracy theorists fell to point out is this fact about the UK;

For the UK government to be behind this attack, it has to be higher then parliament, then the house of lords, even the Privy Council. For the conspiracy to be fact, the Monarchy has to be the ones who gave the go ahead to do this, which is very, very,very hard to prove.

Just remember that

[edit on 10-7-2005 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite
What conspiracy theorists fell to point out is this fact about the UK;

For the UK government to be behind this attack, it has to be higher then parliament, then the house of lords, even the Privy Council. For the conspiracy to be fact, the Monarchy has to be the ones who gave the go ahead to do this, which is very, very,very hard to prove.

Just remember that

[edit on 10-7-2005 by infinite]

no thats not necessaraly true. It comes down to what government was responsible, and what you mean by government. There are alot of aspects to it. It was not necessaraly the Birtish governement, and certainly unlikely that it was anyone involved with election politics.
I dont see why someone has to tell the monarchy. lol

[edit on 10-7-2005 by AdamJ]

Originally posted by AdamJ
no thats not necessaraly true. It comes down to what government was responsible, and what you mean by government. There are alot of aspects to it. It was not necessaraly the Birtish governement, and certainly unlikely that it was anyone involved with election politics.

i have looked into the whole thing and the only why the government was behind it is if the Queen planned it which is basically impossible to do. If the government did do it, she would of thrown the government out, which she has the power to do.

The problem with the conspiracies is that know one has looked into how the UK government works, sure it has power, but the Queen is head of state, not the prime minister

I think it is too early to come to conclusions with the london attacks, but the 9/11 attacks had too many questions that still need to be answered. Because of that, the government must have at least known about the attacks and did nothing about it, but I think it was more than that. Now when I hear about a terrorist attack I come here, instead of CNN.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by BigPimpin]

well yes, like i said it depends what you mean by government.

I dont believe that it was the British government at all. i think it was some agency operationg out of the US of A in the name of globalism and banking interests.

Still dont see why the queen has to know though?
If Blair decided he has got to scare people in order to get through these important legisaltions he could do so without telling queeny.

Originally posted by AdamJ
Still dont see why the queen has to know though?
If Blair decided he has got to scare people in order to get through these important legisaltions he could do so without telling queeny.

The US has a republican system with a President as head of state, we have a Monarchy with a Queen head of state. The Queen has the power to close parliament if she wants.
Legisaltions have to pass through the house of lords, so you can see Blair doesnt have power to pass things on his own.

Before you can make a conspiracy involving the British government, you have to understand how our system work.

I do understand how the system works. Does not mean that people in the system cannot conspire to artifically make problems look greater than they really are in order to get their legislation through.

totally agree with Big Pimpin by the way

Originally posted by AdamJ
I do understand how the system works. Does not mean that people in the system cannot conspire to artifically make problems look greater than they really are in order to get their legislation through.

Yes, but again, everyone is ignoring the fact that Tony Blair isn't introducing authotarian powers after the attacks. We've had to deal with terrorism since the 1800s, this is nothing new to Britian. We've had irish terrorism,republican terrorism, far right terrorism, this is nothing new and thats why the UK state will not turn in to the US.

Again you dont understand how the system works because when you become an MP you declare allegiance to the Queen. If you fail to do so, you are thrown out of parilament and will face treason.

Originally posted by infinite
Yes, but again, everyone is ignoring the fact that Tony Blair isn't introducing authotarian powers after the attacks. We've had to deal with terrorism since the 1800s, this is nothing new to Britian. We've had irish terrorism,republican terrorism, far right terrorism, this is nothing new and thats why the UK state will not turn in to the US.

Well i agree, compared to the unbelievable corruption in America, the UK is light years ahead and there is no evidence so far of them rushing through authroitarian powers, but that is why we should make sure it stays the way it is and they dont get away with scaring us into giving up the amazing system we have.

Again you dont understand how the system works because when you become an MP you declare allegiance to the Queen. If you fail to do so, you are thrown out of parilament and will face treason.

so what, you can swear allegiance to whatever you like that doesnt mean anything. You are assuming that nobody ever lies.
In fact the punishment if you dont, leaves those who dont want to swear allegiance without a choice and so increase the chance they will, just for the sake of it, without really meaning what they say.

I dont think i am gonna get anwhere with you on this

The US has a republican system with a President as head of state, we have a Monarchy with a Queen head of state. The Queen has the power to close parliament if she wants.
Legisaltions have to pass through the house of lords, so you can see Blair doesnt have power to pass things on his own.

Before you can make a conspiracy involving the British government, you have to understand how our system work.

Are you seriously suggesting that for this to be a conspiracy, it would have to be voted on by Parliament? I don't think 9/11 or Waco or Ruby Ridge were voted on by our Congress, yet those events were far from not having government relations any way you look at it.

There are things called intelligence agencies, and things do go on behind closed doors whether we like it or not. That's something we should understand. Hell, our own CIA could've even done this by themselves with no trouble at all. They've done much more complicated work.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by soapydodger
I have now come to the conclusion that these people or some of them are actually scared of an outside force attacking not only their country but civilian areas. This is because it puts them in danger personally. So to take away some of that fear they try to put the blame of these attacks onto their own Government. This is done, in my eyes, because its easier for them to think their government are doing these attacks as the Government can be voted out if you put enough frighteners into people.

errm.... OK, nice theory. Completely wrong (IMO) but nice anyway.

I'd turn it around the otherway actually and make it read as:
The conspiracy people are NOT afraid of Terrorism at all but afraid of what a government using Terrorism as it's pretext will be capable of within their country of residence. They only need to look back 4 years to see how much has happened already but history is full of moments when government sponsered Terrorism was used as a pretext for controlling a publics opinion.

Your theory forgets this fact.

Seriously, i have no reason to be scared of a 1 in a billion chance of being caught in a Terrorist attack and if i am, then so be it, fate played a better card but i'll DEFINITLY be affected when the government makes new laws, new wars, new taxes, new restrictions etc etc as they tell me i must be 'defiant'.

take a look at what happened in South Africa, in the mid 70s i think, when the government brought in anti-terror legislation and it ended up with the government getting out of control, because everyone who disagreed with them was labelled a terrorist

[edit on 11-7-2005 by AdamJ]