The conspiracy theory mindset - rethreaded

OP

Original post by L i b

Nope, I think it was wrong. That does not imply any sense of negligence whatsoever. The September dossier makes it quite clear that there were considerable difficulties getting credible intelligence out of Iraq at that time.

I opposed the war at the time, these days I'm perhaps very tentatively supportive in hindsight, but you can't really get to the genuine merits of the war without first admitting that HMG knew that there was pretty much no evidence Saddam possessed nuclear or biological weapons, and that if they had said "We want to go into Iraq to take care of a few old CW arty shells" then it would not have been taken seriously.

There were good reasons for the war. But these were not the reasons we were sold. The threat was ginned up in papers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail, who reacted hysterically (as the government knew they would) to the claims in the dossier (and many of the claims in the dossier were placed in it without attaching the caveats and doubts that had been attached when the analytical products they were part of were created)

Reply 122

n00

14

Original post by young_guns

There's an excellent video here of David Aaronovitch being interviewed by James Delingpole on his book about conspiracy theories

I thought Delingpole was a conspiracy theorist. :s-smilie:

Original post by young_guns

I'm not a huge fan of Aaronovitch, I think he's smug and irritating. And the one and only conspiracy I do tend to believe may have something to it is the Kennedy assassination (happy to go into it if asked, I believe some aspects raise genuine questions, but that's beyond the scope of this thread).

What do you make of operation gladio?

Reply 123

OP

Original post by n00

I thought Delingpole was a conspiracy theorist. :s-smilie:

Oh, you mean the global warming thing? Actually, you're probably right. I forgot about that.

What do you make of operation gladio?

There's no question NATO stay-behind armies existed, and were involved in criminal activities in Italy and Belgium, amongst other places. There's no question that NATO and Western intelligence turned a blind eye to certain criminal activities (arms trafficking, bank robberies, sheltering Nazi war criminals) and worked with some very unsavoury right-wing elements.

Having said that, it doesn't follow from that therefore that terrorist attacks today must be false flags (not saying you said that either, but I do know some conspiracy theorists use the existence of Gladio to try to buttress arguments about false flag attacks).

Re Gladio, I think it was a different time. In the Cold War, we did see malfeasance and misconduct, certain cliques within Western intelligence carrying on a private foreign policy (Iran-Contra, for example). They did things that I don't think would occur today.

If the security services might have been minded to do that kind of thing in the 60s, 70s and 80s, I think they would be far too risk averse today. Not only has the culture changed (it's not a boys club anymore, it's not as insular, far harder to hide a criminal clique within a much more diverse organisation), but I think that even if such a clique within the services were minded to do such a thing, they would be far too frightened that their bomber would be videod by an iPhone and picked up on reddit. There are far too many cameras, too many citizen journalists, too many leaks, to get away with something like that today

Reply 124

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by young_guns

Oh, you mean the global warming thing? Actually, you're probably right. I forgot about that.

Not just the global warming thing, but environmentalism as a whole. He also thinks that there was little scientific evidence to support a ban on neonitocinoid pesticides (not true obviously, there was plenty of evidence) and it was all done because of environmentalism and flawed studies (the science was and is solid). Apparently in one of his books he blames Rachel Carson (author of Silent Spring) for millions of malaria deaths because of DDT being banned, even though DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use.

Delingpole is a perfect example of how moronic conspiracy theories and theorists can get.

Reply 125

Original post by young_guns

Oh, you mean the global warming thing? Actually, you're probably right. I forgot about that.

There's no question NATO stay-behind armies existed, and were involved in criminal activities in Italy and Belgium, amongst other places. There's no question that NATO and Western intelligence turned a blind eye to certain criminal activities (arms trafficking, bank robberies, sheltering Nazi war criminals) and worked with some very unsavoury right-wing elements.

Having said that, it doesn't follow from that therefore that terrorist attacks today must be false flags (not saying you said that either, but I do know some conspiracy theorists use the existence of Gladio to try to buttress arguments about false flag attacks).

Re Gladio, I think it was a different time. In the Cold War, we did see malfeasance and misconduct, certain cliques within Western intelligence carrying on a private foreign policy (Iran-Contra, for example). They did things that I don't think would occur today.

If the security services might have been minded to do that kind of thing in the 60s, 70s and 80s, I think they would be far too risk averse today. Not only has the culture changed (it's not a boys club anymore, it's not as insular, far harder to hide a criminal clique within a much more diverse organisation), but I think that even if such a clique within the services were minded to do such a thing, they would be far too frightened that their bomber would be videod by an iPhone and picked up on reddit. There are far too many cameras, too many citizen journalists, too many leaks, to get away with something like that today

You are making the assumption that the intelligence services were the puppet-masters and the subversive groups were carrying out their orders.

There is an alternative and more likely narrative. The spooks ended up being sucked into and funding and supporting groups that had their own agendas. It is always a risk with intelligence services back at least to the days of the Counter-Reformation that they end of doling out money to people who profess to share the aims of the paymasters but are really doing their own thing. The intelligence services then get sucked into the plans of these independent actors in the belief that they are advancing the intelligence service's objectives.

Iran-Contra is almost the classic example of this, in which the US government ends up supplying arms to America's enemies in the Middle East in order to support drug trafficking from Central America to the USA.

If you look at the Italian Gladio; right wing groups are trying to destabilise Italy to bring about a left wing insurrection in order to prompt a right-wing coup. Not only don't they give a damn about democracy; they are not interested in a strong stable government as part of a strong NATO to deter Soviet aggression. The threat from the USSR is so low on their agenda as to have fallen off the bottom. If you ask what sort of Italy did the Brezhnev era Soviet government want, the answer is that which the CIA was paying to bring about!

The UK managed to avoid this because it created its stay-behind network out of people who were first and foremost anti-Nazis.

However it isn't clear it achieved the same in Northern Ireland. The history of the Troubles has not yet been written and the question has yet to be answered; how many members of the IRA weren't on the British government payroll?

Reply 126

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

You are making the assumption that the intelligence services were the puppet-masters and the subversive groups were carrying out their orders.

Sorry, I think you're confused. When did I make that assumption?

If you bothered to read the comment, you may even see the words "turned a blind eye".

Reply 127

Original post by young_guns

Sorry, I think you're confused. When did I make that assumption?

If you bothered to read the comment, you may even see the words "turned a blind eye".

I accept what you say, if that wasn't your intention but:

There's no question NATO stay-behind armies existed, and were involved in criminal activities in Italy and Belgium, amongst other places. There's no question that NATO and Western intelligence turned a blind eye to certain criminal activities (arms trafficking, bank robberies, sheltering Nazi war criminals) and worked with some very unsavoury right-wing elements.

Having said that, it doesn't follow from that therefore that terrorist attacks today must be false flags (not saying you said that either, but I do know some conspiracy theorists use the existence of Gladio to try to buttress arguments about false flag attacks).

Re Gladio, I think it was a different time. In the Cold War, we did see malfeasance and misconduct, certain cliques within Western intelligence carrying on a private foreign policy (Iran-Contra, for example). They did things that I don't think would occur today.

If the security services might have been minded to do that kind of thing in the 60s, 70s and 80s, I think they would be far too risk averse today. Not only has the culture changed (it's not a boys club anymore, it's not as insular, far harder to hide a criminal clique within a much more diverse organisation), but I think that even if such a clique within the services were minded to do such a thing, they would be far too frightened that their bomber would be videod by an iPhone and picked up on reddit. There are far too many cameras, too many citizen journalists, too many leaks, to get away with something like that today

Reply 128

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

I accept what you say, if that wasn't your intention but:

Oh and as to the rest of what you've highlighted, they're just random words. Maybe you are seeing patterns that don't exist.

Iran-Contra is almost the classic example of this, in which the US government ends up supplying arms to America's enemies in the Middle East in order to support drug trafficking from Central America to the USA.

That's just paranoid nonsense. The CIA did nothing of the sort, had no intention to "support drug trafficking" and had no direct involvement in drug trafficking whatsoever

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 129

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

I accept what you say, if that wasn't your intention but:

You highlight the words "get away with" in a sentence where I say that even if such a clique existed, they wouldn't try to get away with it because they wouldn't be able to

That seems fairly straightforward use of the English language. If you're taking the opposite meaning from it, then you're so easily confused that I doubt you have much to contribute to the conversation

By the way, it's interesting that you're denying that Iran-Contra was carried out by a clique within the intelligence community / executive. You appear to be saying it was actually the whole CIA / entire US government that was involved?

It's precisely because of the illegality of the Iran-Contra programme that the White House had to hide it from the CIA and congress, and use cut outs within the Defence Department and private industry

Your belief it was the entire government is based on the kind of paranoid conspiracy thinking that believes such a thing could be kept secret even if tens of thousands of people were involved.

Reply 130

Original post by young_guns

By the way, it's interesting that you're denying that Iran-Contra happened.

I am certainly not denying it happened. What I am saying is that the USA was manipulated at both ends so it became an instrument of Iranian and Contra policy rather than achieving any aims the US government was seeking to pursue.

That is a risk that is always present in these cases. As the spooks' world is secret there is no challenge to their decision-making when they end up funding and supporting a policy at odds with their own government's aims. Ollie North wasn't Metternich.

EDIT

I see that you have changed your comment. I certainly do not think it was carried out by the US government as a whole. As you can see from the post above, it is the fact that it was carried out by a secret clique that leads to it being exploited by the spies' supposed clients

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 131

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

I am certainly not denying it happened.

You're right, you're not denying it happened. You were claiming it was undertaken by the entire government / CIA. Laughable.

Please now elaborate on your claims the CIA was trafficking arms to Iran to "support" drug trafficking

Reply 132

Original post by young_guns

That's just paranoid nonsense. The CIA did nothing of the sort, had no intention to "support drug trafficking" and had no direct involvement in drug trafficking whatsoever

This is getting ridiculous.

The CIA did not support and did not wish to support drug trafficking. However money they paid to the Contras to fight Sandinistas ended up as seed capital for a drug trafficking operation.

Reply 133

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

I see that you have changed your comment. I certainly do not think it was carried out by the US government as a whole. As you can see from the post above, it is the fact that it was carried out by a secret clique that leads to it being exploited by the spies' supposed clients

And yet you highlighted my comment that certain cliques within Western intelligence/government circles had carried on a private foreign policy, like Iran-Contra (private because it was illegal, viz the Boland Amendment and Iran sanctions) re, to be somehow meaningful when you are now claiming you believe precisely the same thing?

My comment also said that I did not believe an Iran-Contra type operation would be possible today, and that even if such a clique existed today (which I reject), and even if they had criminal intentions (which I reject) they wouldn't risk carrying something along the lines of what conspiracy theorists claim (like a bombing) because the fear of exposure would far outweigh any possible gain

Which part of that do you disagree with? Do you think such a clique does exist today? If so, tell us who they are. If such a clique does exist, you believe they would risk carrying out a false flag? That seems highly unlikely.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 134

OP

Original post by nulli tertius

This is getting ridiculous.

The CIA did not support and did not wish to support drug trafficking. However money they paid to the Contras to fight Sandinistas ended up as seed capital for a drug trafficking operation.

Fine. It sounds like we're in full agreement (though your original comment used those words, "support drug" trafficking). Which raises the question, what exactly is your issue with my comments?

You imply I'm naive and think the CIA are pulling all the strings when I use words like "turn a blind eye". Then you say you took another meaning and highlight random words in my comment, a comment which outlined a stance with which you're in apparent agreement re Iran-Contra. I'm struggling to see what exactly it is you're trying to say that's different to what I've said? It seems like you're just trying to start arguments

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 135

Original post by young_guns

And yet you highlighted my comment that certain cliques within Western intelligence/government circles had carried on a private foreign policy

If we go back to the beginning, the original point I was making was that the "policy" wasn't the policy at all of the "cliques within Western intelligence/government circles" but were the policies of their clients in which the intelligence community had become ensnared.

You then said that in your earlier post you had suggested that the western side were merely turners of blind eyes. I highlighted portions of your earlier post to demonstrate that in your earlier post you had stated that western intelligence had been actors and not merely turners of blind eyes.

You then start accusing me of a variety of conspiracies.

Reply 136

OP