What is completely dumfounding to me is how a conspiracy theorist would accept that the US would hire Craft guys and tell them, "and hey, could you wear your standard Craft gear and make sure to be fully available to security cameras both before and after the operation? Yeah, that's right. Be talking on your phones, earnestly. Be holding suspicious looking devices in your hands. The usual."
You simply have to see the bigger picture. That said, I don't blame people for getting fatigued by having to hear about how everything is a conspiracy. First off, most people who speak of conspiracies only know so much about what their talking about and spread it infatically and if you're not rooted into alternative research and solely trust mainstream sources, many ideas are lost on you and naturally you get turned off to hearing about this stuff. On a side note, not everything is a conspiracy and there are coincidences. That said, it is hilarious however how so many think pretty much everything is a coincidence.
coincidence is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I thought it was more than a coincidence that, at one time, the US government got top level advice from people like Paul Wolfowitz and, soon thereafter, took a terrorist attack and pivoted the blame to go to war with Iraq. I also saw a possible conspiracy when our Secretary of State made a (very lame) presentation for nuclear WMD development in Iraq while the international monitors said there was no such evidence of uranium work in Iraq. That made me go "hmmm, looks fishy." So not everyone is a sheeple all of the time. It's just when you have a case like the present one: (1) there's not much motive for a false flag. Time will tell, but I don't see the pending legislation that was just waiting for this event to tip it into passing. Besides, the government has everything it needs to be ruthless with its citizens already. They wiretap us without warrants, can suspend miranda, stick us in Ton-o-guano-mo without trial, etc, etc. Even take us out with drones just by putting us on an enemy list. So what would this false flag allow them to do, exactly, that they can't already do? (2) if they had two patsies set up, why did they go overboard to make sure one of them would live to tell his tale? (3) they strapped a bomb onto one of the patsies, and strapped weaponry in the hands of both. Wait, what? I could go on and on. I'm not arguing with *you* per se, but just the conspiracy mindset. I guess it's a fun hobby, but I think it honestly congests otherwise interesting conversation. Meh. Overall, I just don't understand how the government is supposed to be so sophisticated in some endeavors but then it can't even fake compelling evidence of WMD in a country we've taken by force. Hell, it couldn't even out one of its own agents without it becoming a big news story. If there's a buck to be made on a legitimate story, it will find its way to the light in America. I'm convinced of that. So the only argument is how dumb and entertainment-obsessed do we have to be until really important stories canNOT make a buck. And you could argue we're already there or perilously close anyway. Cheers.
And I completely understand your point of view because I'd imagine that you can't have a meaningful conversation from your perspective if someone wants to claim conspiracy all of the time. But once you see the bigger picture(s), it clouds your judgement so much to the point that it's all you see, even when it's not there and you just want to see it. And yes, we are over-entertained, which is why I point out most people know more about Rockets history and the current team than something even as basic as the US Constitution (I'm no exception). Somewhere along the line entertainment became life and life became annoying until we could be entertained again.
Actually, I can have all kinds of meaningful conversations, but they have to bring what most reasonable people would consider legitimate evidence, for one, and be able to look at all available evidence, for another. Most of what I see (with a few good exceptions, more historical than contemporary) present highly cherry-picked information. When I've tried to engage these folks (on something like the moon landing), they can look away from certain facts and then hyperbolically extrapolate from others. Along the way, there are leaps of logic, such as, oh, tens of thousands of technically minded people either being fooled to work on a mission that didn't actually exist OR jointly deciding to lie about it for the rest of their days. There's almost always a moment like that, but whatever. I'm gonna drop it.
I for one can't stand the moon landing one if only because it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things measured against conspiracies of more relevance to the world. Ahh yes, the classic ad hominem tactic. Please note, it only works on people who can be attacked because of a weak emotional frame of mind. I'll gladly be considered a tin-foil hat wearer if it means I stand up for the truth. That said, I'm not sure that this Boston event was a conspiracy or not because I haven't really looked into it yet and that's despite the fact my mindset usually automatically thinks conspiracy. It's entirely possible they acted alone, even if certain Powers-That-Be may take advantage of it for their agenda.
Fricken ridiculous, if Russia sent a warning show as an Islamist terrorist, the FBI should have been more diligent. DD
I'd say it's more "extremists". There were a whole bunch of Communists/far-leftists who bought into the 9/11 crap as further proof of the illegitimacy of the capitalist system and so on.
You have provided no evidence to back you claim that the FBI plans terror attacks "all the time" for the purpose of stopping it. The fact that you would say such a thing with no evidence of it makes you look kind of nuts.
Another poster already posted Originally Posted by NY TIMES Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op...fbi.html?_r=2&
No, those are examples of terror attacks the FBI got wind of, and then helped to "completion" with fake munitions to then bust the people in the act. These weren't examples of terror attacks planned by the FBI.
Here's another one http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-arrested-federal-reserve-bomb-plot-article-1.1185825 My question is who's to say the FBI didn't know about this attack? They interviewed this guy 2 years ago at Russia's request. You telling me its impossible based on the facts we are certain of that the FBI had no knowledge of the Boston plot?
The fact that it took more than one person, acting in concert, defines it as a conspiracy. The brothers conspired to plan and carry out the attack.
