Think about it this way...

Let's take another look at this whole thing.

Say you have this kid. He's about 11 years old.

This kid has a taste for starting fires. Fire fascinates him. He steals matches and lighters from his dad and just stares at the flames they ignite. Then, he moves on to burning stuff. Paper, small grass fires, wood.

Fast forward to age 15. The kid now begins to go bigger. He starts setting abandoned houses on fire. Nothing happens to him. So, one day he's about to set his church on fire, but he's caught in the act. They tell his parents, and his parents plead with the pastor to sweep this one under the rug. The pastor obliges, but the kid has to do yard work for a month at the church and his parents dish out their own punishment.

But, alas, the fire calls him. After a while, he's up to his old tricks again. But, one day as he is setting someone's house on fire, the cops bust him and put out the flames, minimizing the damage done to the house. Now the kid's in trouble. He confesses, and is eventually sent to juvy for a year and a half.

Our kid is now 18 when he gets out of baby lock. He's now legally a man. He chills for a while, starts working. But, a few months later, he's at it again. Setting fires. He burns down about 4 buildings before they catch him again. He goes to trial, but they can only pin 1 of the burns on him. So now, he goes to big boy jail, prison, and spends the next, I dunno, 8 years there.

Now, our firebug finally gets out. He relocates to a different city and starts trying to get his life on track. Of course, it's hard to find a job with his record, but he eventually does. All looks good for a while.

Suddenly, fires start popping up in this town. The city hadn't seen arson for years, but now several suspicious fires pop up.

Question: Knowing that our firebug has moved to this city, who do you think is the FIRST person the po-pos want to talk to as a suspect? By now, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this, but let's kick it up a notch. BAM!!

Rewind to the time Mr. Flambe is in prison. Now, as you know, you have plenty of time on your hands in prison. So, let's say our guy starts writing down his thoughts. But, eventually, these thoughts turn into plans.

He writes that he plans to continue burning up stuff once he gets out. He even lays out how he's going to do it in some cases. He says he's going to burn down churches and leave a flaming cross in the churchyard to blame it on the KKK. He says he's going to use Molotov cocktails to burn up cars and businesses to blame it on gangs. He says he's going to burn up forests to make it look like an accident. All this and more he writes while on lock.

Fast forward to the point where fires start again. Say that one of these fires is indeed a church, and, sure enough, there's a flaming cross in the churchyard. Here's where it gets tricky.

See, it clearly has the hallmarks of a Klan terrorist act. On this alone, the obvious suspects are the local KKK. But, say detectives come across our guy's plans. NOW who do you think they'll be looking for?

Though what I've just outlined is a hypothetical, I think it readily applies to 9/11. Think about it...

Our govt has ADMITTEDLY planned terror attacks in the past to get the public behind war- Operation Northwoods, PNAC documents

Our govt has ADMITTEDLY allowed attacks to happen despite having prior knowledge to get the public behind war- Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty attack

Our govt has ADMITTEDLY staged events to get the public behind war - Gulf of Tonkin

And, finally and most damning, our govt HAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT TERROR ATTACKS BEFORE - Operation Gladio, terror attacks in Iran in the 1950s, the events in Nicaragua, the events at Waco, the OKC bombing, WTC attack 1 in '93

With all this- the plans, the facilitated attacks, the actual carrying out of attacks- who do you think detectives would pin 9/11 on (assuming they're not with the crooks)? Who would YOU pin this on, based on the above?

First of all the behavior patterns of this fictitious individual are also fictitious. Human behavior is a little too complex to be simplified like that.

Secondly you are trying to compare the behavior patterns of an individual to that of an organization. I am not an expert in the psychology of organizational behavior, and I doubt that you are too. Therefore can you provide something to support your contention that this is a valid comparison?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Our govt has ADMITTEDLY planned terror attacks in the past to get the public behind war- Operation Northwoods, PNAC documents

The whole “Northwoods” thing has been long discredited as nothing more than a dumb idea at the time that was immediately recognized as such. Sort of like the exploding Cuban cigar for Castro. At any rate, since most of those who were involved with that aren’t even alive now, so what?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Our govt has ADMITTEDLY allowed attacks to happen despite having prior knowledge to get the public behind war- Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty attack

Again, typical revisionist history. There has never been any evidence that the U.S. government had anything to do with “allowing: the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. The insistence that we did is based on the racial stereotyping that the Japanese were incapable of planning and carrying out a successful mission without the “white man” finding out about it.

This is the same type of thought process exhibited by many today who are unwilling to concede that a “bunch of ignorant Arabs” could pull off the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Our govt has ADMITTEDLY staged events to get the public behind war - Gulf of Tonkin

The Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn’t staged, the North Vietnamese actually attacked our ships.

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, finally and most damning, our govt HAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT TERROR ATTACKS BEFORE - Operation Gladio, terror attacks in Iran in the 1950s, the events in Nicaragua, the events at Waco, the OKC bombing, WTC attack 1 in '93

Such wide claims without any proof.

Originally posted by truthseeka
With all this- the plans, the facilitated attacks, the actual carrying out of attacks- who do you think detectives would pin 9/11 on (assuming they're not with the crooks)? Who would YOU pin this on, based on the above?

How about the organization that has made it its mission to destroy the U.S.? The same organization that has repeatedly attacked U.S. interests abroad?

The Golf of Tonkin incident didn't happen... The NSA released documents, saying so... It was on msnbc, do a search

Let me clarify, the justification for the war was based upon a second attack that never occured, from how I understand it, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong

I'll tell you what. Let's agree to dissagree on all those points and move on.

All I want to know from this thread is this:

TS is trying to compare the behavior patterns of an individual to that of an organization. I am not an expert in the psychology of organizational behavior, and I doubt that TS is also. Therefore can someone provide something to support the contention that this is a valid comparison?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
First of all the behavior patterns of this fictitious individual are also fictitious. Human behavior is a little too complex to be simplified like that.

Human behavior is complex, true, but not so complex that none of the above is possible.

Just as individuals can have clear patterns in their behavior, so can group behavior. Group behavior can be just as uncanny if not moreso, just because of the social influences that develop around the group in question. Mobs are a good example; all sense of individualism can be lost in such a group. And like it or not, there are more similarities between our government and a criminal organization than most would like to believe.

Secondly you are trying to compare the behavior patterns of an individual to that of an organization. I am not an expert in the psychology of organizational behavior, and I doubt that you are too.

Then maybe I can help.

Read what I just posted above. Group behaviors can be just as uncanny as any individual's, and the guys in power have a legacy going. Even within the Bush family, it goes back to Grandaddy Bush banking for the Nazis. None of the important guys are in power just because they were randomly elected or appointed; they're all there for a reason, and honest Joe's aren't going to make it. With groups like these running countries, you can bet that corruption will be rampant, and they just continue screening themselves to prevent any shift in power.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Our govt has ADMITTEDLY allowed attacks to happen despite having prior knowledge to get the public behind war- Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty attack

Again, typical revisionist history. There has never been any evidence that the U.S. government had anything to do with “allowing: the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. The insistence that we did is based on the racial stereotyping that the Japanese were incapable of planning and carrying out a successful mission without the “white man” finding out about it.

This is a bunch of bull crap.

The "insistence" comes from the fact that the Jap codes detailing the attack were intercepted a year before Pearl Harbor occured. That wouldn't be such a big deal if it had not been stated that it would only take six months to decode the messages. That leaves an additional six months to spare, that they allegedly knew nothing, and then by happy coincidence schedule those aircraft carriers for exercises on that day. This exact info has been aired on major media, Howard, ie a History Channel series, so it's not like it's extremely obscure knowledge with a hell of a lot of room for debate.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn’t staged, the North Vietnamese actually attacked our ships.

God!

The NSA has even released documents showing that the second attack was nonsense! How hard-headed are you, Howard?

For those that don't know, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was two main events: the first consisted of a bullet hitting a US ship and doing superficial damage. The second event was a bunch of subs chasing around non-existant ships, as even the NSA report released last November documents.

So, our increased involvement in Vietnam was essentially based upon a bullet hitting the hull of a US ship, and fish story exaggerated into an outright lie.

And some 58,000 thousand Americans would die for that. And millions of Vietnamese.

Such wide claims without any proof.

You'd be in the minority of most of the issues you reference here, Howard, if you do not believe in US involvement.

The US-sponsored Nicaraguan terrorism is well documented and related to the Iran-Contra Affair. A simple Google search will fill you in on this. Waco is also well-documented, as is Ruby Ridge, and a number of US involvements in foreign countries that went less than courteous, in terms of how our soldiers treated foreign civilians.

Originally posted by truthseeka
With all this- the plans, the facilitated attacks, the actual carrying out of attacks- who do you think detectives would pin 9/11 on (assuming they're not with the crooks)? Who would YOU pin this on, based on the above?

How about the organization that has made it its mission to destroy the U.S.?

You mean the organization that the CIA organized to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan? That the U.S. thereby trained and armed? And allowed Osama bin Laden to "take over"?

Though, if you were interested in truth, you might see that the connections between the US and al Qaeda (or al CIAda ) were never really cut, as they're now helping us by giving us the perfect excuse for invading Middle-Eastern countries.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by bsbray11]

Yes, the codes were broken, but that doesn’t nessessarily mean that we knew about the pending attack. Do you honestly believe that they discussed details of the attack over the radio? When the fleet set sail on prior to the attack itself, they observed strict radio silence.

The idea that Roosevelt knew of the attack before it happened is a long standing myth, that has been debunked numerous times and I will not get into it here.

As for the similarities and differenced between individual and organizational behavior, this is a fairly complicated field. Since you claim to know about it, where did you study it?

Can you reference any specific studies or works that support the claim that group behavior can mimic the behavior of an arsonist?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yes, the codes were broken, but that doesn’t nessessarily mean that we knew about the pending attack.

Oh, no, of course not.

When the fleet set sail on prior to the attack itself, they observed strict radio silence.

This has nothing to do with the messages received about a year earlier, now does it?

The idea that Roosevelt knew of the attack before it happened is a long standing myth, that has been debunked numerous times and I will not get into it here.

This is just a disinfo tactic here. I could say virtually the same thing, except from my perspective, very easily. And yet it needs absolutely nothing to back it up, and can sound very convincing.

As for the similarities and differenced between individual and organizational behavior, this is a fairly complicated field.

Not really, because when you study psychology and sociology, they're generally taught separately, and thus no direct comparison is made. At least, I don't know of any specific "fields" dealing with individuals vs. groups, unless it's just general sociology, which isn't really complicated. You're more likely to just learn psychology (emphasizing the individual), and/or sociology (emphasizing larger groups). That makes things clear enough automatically.

Since you claim to know about it, where did you study it?

Why, that's really none of your business, is it Howard?

I cannot be called a psychologist because I don't have a Ph. D, and so I won't put on that I am, but I have nonetheless completed college courses within the field and can point you in the direction of relevant information.

Can you reference any specific studies or works that support the claim that group behavior can mimic the behavior of an arsonist?

Not on arsonists in specific, but look up Prof. Phillip G. Zimbardo's 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. It's a good illustration of how people will behave in groups associated with certain behavioral patterns. It's as if you become how you're expected to behave in your position. It really seems to come very naturally with westerners, at least. And it should show quite clearly that people conform, even to "evil," very easily; as if without effort, given the proper setting.

Also look up grou behavior, deindividualization, etc. for more info, though Zimbardo's experiment is a pretty clear illustration by itself.


I notice you backed off the Iran Contra thing, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and all that.

Did you just not get the memo informing you that all of that stuff was already out in the open?

....

[edit on 8-2-2006 by bsbray11]

Well, er, this is from

Mother of all conspiracies

22 Nov (´41). - Tokyo said to Ambassador Nomura in Washington about extending the deadline for negotiations to November 29: "...this time we mean it, that the deadline absolutely cannot be changed. After that things are automatically going to happen."
CIA Director Allen Dulles told people after the war that US was warned in mid-November 1941 that the Japanese Fleet had sailed east past Tokyo Bay and was going to attack Pearl Harbor. CIA FOIA
23 Nov. - JN25 order - "The first air attack has been set for 0330 hours on X-day." (Tokyo time or 8 A.M. Honolulu time)
25 Nov. - British decrypted the Winds setup message sent Nov. 19. The US decoded it Nov. 28. It was a J-19 Code message that there would be an attack and that the signal would come over Radio Tokyo as a weather report - rain meaning war, east (Higashi) meaning US.
25 Nov. - Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary "FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday." FDR asked: "the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

So, was Dulles lying? Was theStimson diary a fake?

Howard...

By splitting hairs about the comparison you're missing the point. But, you're pretty slick, so I guess you're evading the point.

The group vs. ID thing is not the issue here. What IS the issue is the pattern being a justifiable means to blame. You wanna pretend cops don't check out sex offenders in an area when somebody gets raped, fine. You can deny it all you want, but any rational person will make the same conclusion I made.

How is it that criminals in the govt have planned terror attacks, allowed terror attacks to happen, staged terror attacks, and even CARRIED THEM OUT, but they now have NOTHING to do with the biggest terror attack in US history?! I have heard top CIA officials ADMIT to the govt using terror in Iran in the 50s. The Gulf of Tonkin has been DECLASSIFIED. PNAC is REAL; BTW, you had nothing to say about that one.