It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Incite a riot, commit a blatant act of terrorism (AF 447 wouldn't count; it is still a mystery. I am talking about something very public, very high profile, that leaves no doubt), shut down their power grid. And so forth...
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Seriously, I think if most of us are forced to read more "disclosure" thread we'll puke. You guys are whipping yourselves up to some sort of frenzy over nothing.
[edit on 7-6-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]
Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by skibtz
Now there's a potentially interesting topic for a thread....
"If disclosure led to WW3, should we have disclosure?"
.......or something like that.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It makes no logical sense.
In international politics, when country A does not want country B to perform a certain action it is because that will hurt the interests of country A. In the scenario you present, the United States does not want France to disclose an alien presence on Earth. The United States tries to intimidate France by way of downing AF 447. But would this be intimidation or provocation? What better way for France to get back at the United States (ie; hurt the US) but by doing exactly what the United States did not want to happen?
See how the logic breaks down?
Originally posted by skibtz
The question I am posing is whether it is plausible that a US government would down a French asset in order to silence a French government that was teetering on the brink of disclosure?
Originally posted by reugen
I think its called Plausible deniability.
en.wikipedia.org...
The question I am posing is whether it is plausible that a US government would down a French asset in order to silence a French government that was teetering on the brink of disclosure?
Originally posted by jkrog08
Yes, it absolutely is and I would not doubt it for a second. The shadow government is ruthless and will stop at nothing to prevent disclosure and their demise. BUT if that is what downed the plane is unlikely until more mundane explanations have been totally spent.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Which is why, if you buy in to such things, this conspiracy theory does not make any sense. If they wanted to protect their power, they would not commit an act of provocation, which is exactly what downing an airliner would be.
Originally posted by reugen
No one would take credit for such an accident but the powers know who and why, its pure intimidation.