|
The Cataline Conspiraces fit conspiracy theory decently well. The prevailing one being that Cicero engineered the events himself to boost his own image, and to create a problem for himself to solve. His handling of the events, notably executing Roman citizens without trial, hounded Cicero for the rest of his career, as did suspicion of his own part in them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Catilinarian_Conspiracy
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Ascribing "conspiracy theory" status to perceptions of historical events that developed centuries ago is really iffy, because frankly, it's the norm. The idea that Nero "fiddled while Rome burned" began as a more-or-less poetic statement by Suetonius which was later taken as historical fact. No one in Nero's own time literally believed that he did that, because he partially financed the reconstruction. That's exactly what I was wondering, thanks. WoodrowSkillson posted:The Cataline Conspiraces fit conspiracy theory decently well. The prevailing one being that Cicero engineered the events himself to boost his own image, and to create a problem for himself to solve. His handling of the events, notably executing Roman citizens without trial, hounded Cicero for the rest of his career, as did suspicion of his own part in them. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Image of debris crashing into WTC 7 at 1:00, images of fires raging within at 1:04 and 1:25, and excellent visual evidence at 2:00 that would be totally inconsistent with a controlled demolition. Yup, it was a good video, addressed most of my skepticism. Thanks for posting it, Amused to Death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
And if you want a 9/11ish conspiracy that's actually true, Julius Caesar framed the Gallic Wars as a preemptive defensive action, but the real reason was that he was in tremendous debt, and when his term as proconsul ended he would lose his immunity to litigation. The Gallic Wars were about turning him from a bankrupt into Rome's richest man and greatest military hero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
A conspiracy needs some kind of backroom dealings though. Caesar openly picked a fight with the Helvetii, and then just kept using the branched off conflicts as pretexts for total invasion under the guise of "defending Roman interests." While his stated goals were completely false, his real goals were not hidden to anyone, and were openly called out in the Senate by his opponents. The Triumvirate is probably a better example. Where the 3 most powerful people in the Republic used backroom deals to split the entire country among themselves, and were completely successfull in doing so. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:A conspiracy needs some kind of backdoor dealings though. Caesar openly picked a fight with the Helvetii, and then just kept using the branched off conflicts as pretexts for total invasion under the guise of "defending Roman interests." While his stated goals were completely false, his real goals were not hidden to anyone, and were openly called out in the Senate by his opponents. Yeah, but a lot of other people were slavering at the riches in good lands, booty, and slaves that the Gallic Wars would bring in, so most of the upper-class that wasn't explicitly pro or anti-Caesar didn't give a toss. Romans never were really against the idea of wars of conquest and profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Real inconsistencies and evidence of conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a101400colethwart&scale=2#a101400colethwart quote:
Also why is the CIA so comfy with al qaeda and why is it so easy for them to escape jails and prisons? I feel like this stuff is a lot more interesting than what everyone is talking about but it seems like you're all just satisfied in asserting your intellectual dominance over "conspiracy theorists" (of which I have met few in real life compared with people whose worldviews strive towards an accordance with logic) and (I will say this for the second time) accepting a literal schizophrenic as some sort of authority on conspiracies and "conspiracy theorists." This thread really belongs in GBS with the way it's being handled. Just because you once heard some guy say that he thinks missiles blew up WTC or whatever doesn't mean that everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or some sort of conspiracy is an idiot or not knowledgable or whatever. I miss lf
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:Real inconsistencies and evidence of conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings See, that site has some pretty immeidate problems. There's a topic headline in there that says: August 16, 2001: Moussaoui’s Belongings Possess Information Sufficient to Roll Up 9/11 Plot But if you read the actual information, it keeps saying 'potentially' or 'may have'. But moreover: Nothing in that at all points to 9/11 being an 'inside job'. I'm not sure why you think it does. Can you explain? There's no actual theory developed there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:Real inconsistencies and evidence of conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings Government officials of sufficient rank getting inexplicably promoted despite high-profile failures isn't evidence of conspiracy, it's par for the course. Hell, it's the same in private industry too, just look at some of those fuckup CEOs that destroy everything they touch but still end up getting hired over and over. Connections and being on good terms with the bigshots matter far more than performance ever will. On the other hand, what separates "crazy nutjob" conspiracies like trutherism from "probably legit" conspiracy theories like that one US ship that was "accidentally" bombed by Israel way back when?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:See, that site has some pretty immeidate problems. I'll rephrase/reiterate what I prefaced that link with: that they're inconsistencies within and obfuscations surrounding the intelligence, and in my opinion, ground for suspicion of governments conspiring to let these attacks happen/let the people responsible off the hook. I don't know why you'd require an entire theory before considering that these notions are plausible/more interesting than another Alex Jones link or less boring than another post about the physics of the towers falling down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:I'll rephrase/reiterate what I prefaced that link with: that they're inconsistencies within and obfuscations surrounding the intelligence, and in my opinion, ground for suspicion of governments conspiring to let these attacks happen/let the people responsible off the hook. That latter part doesn't follow in the least, though. That's the part that would need developing as a theory. What is the connection between all these various people? In many cases, it looks like covering their rear end, incompetence, factional fighting, etc. So what is the connection between them, and where is the proof of it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:See, that site has some pretty immeidate problems. Yeah all I see is a bunch of bumbling and gently caress-ups, which looks a lot more like regular incompetence instead of some sort of grand overarching conspiracy. Unless well-connected people failing up is a conspiracy, which I guess you could sort of say is (but really it isn't).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Government officials of sufficient rank getting inexplicably promoted despite high-profile failures isn't evidence of conspiracy, it's par for the course. Hell, it's the same in private industry too, just look at some of those fuckup CEOs that destroy everything they touch but still end up getting hired over and over. Connections and being on good terms with the bigshots matter far more than performance ever will. Also see Bush getting re-elected after 9/11 happened on his watch AND he invaded Iraq for no reason. If I ever have kids I don't think I can ever really explain them them the period between 2000-2008 that won't elicit looks of "what the gently caress was wrong with everyone" from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:I'll rephrase/reiterate what I prefaced that link with: that they're inconsistencies within and obfuscations surrounding the intelligence, and in my opinion, ground for suspicion of governments conspiring to let these attacks happen/let the people responsible off the hook. I don't know why you'd require an entire theory before considering that these notions are plausible/more interesting than another Alex Jones link or less boring than another post about the physics of the towers falling down. Uh probably because there's zero evidence for thinking there's some grand conspiracy when regular incompetence and rear end-covering explains everything just fine. Being interesting has nothing to do with (and is usually inversely correlated with) being plausible. Real life is usually a pretty distinctive combination of boring and lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, what separates "crazy nutjob" conspiracies like trutherism from "probably legit" conspiracy theories like that one US ship that was "accidentally" bombed by Israel way back when? Conspiracy theories that are still in the realms of possibility. Trutherism/nutjobs doesn't care for rationality, and if they give up on one theory they will go on to another one as long as 'they' are still responsible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:Real inconsistencies and evidence of conspiracies surrounding 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings There are always going to be inconsistencies in the reporting on complicated events. We talked earlier upthread about all of the sideways stories that were reported when 9/11 was going down, is the fact that parts of those stories were retracted evidence of a conspiracy? Or is it more likely that it was media correcting and adding to the account as the story broke? Panda Bear posted:I feel like this stuff is a lot more interesting than what everyone is talking about but it seems like you're all just satisfied in asserting your intellectual dominance over "conspiracy theorists" (of which I have met few in real life compared with people whose worldviews strive towards an accordance with logic) and (I will say this for the second time) accepting a literal schizophrenic as some sort of authority on conspiracies and "conspiracy theorists." This thread really belongs in GBS with the way it's being handled. Just because you once heard some guy say that he thinks missiles blew up WTC or whatever doesn't mean that everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or some sort of conspiracy is an idiot or not knowledgable or whatever. First off, Prester John is providing the thread with a really good account of why he had been a conspiracy theorist and why he thinks that he stopped being one. It's interesting and pertinent to what we're talking about. Second, very smart people can fall into the conspiracy trap. The human mind looks for patterns, and smart people are very good at finding patterns. And once a smart person has taken a position, they're very good at defending it. That doesn't mean that they're right or that they completely understand what they're talking about. Third, "missiles blowing up WTC" is really just slightly less coherent than "[Global Elite "X"] had the supports filled with thermite and explosives so that when hijacked planes hit the WTC they could be brought down." Both are so far beyond the capabilities and behavior of anyone in government (or finance or wherever) that they're just not credible. Panda Bear posted:I miss lf Why? Do you think anyone there would've done anything more than string you along and talk about Lizard People?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Might as well throw this clusterfuck of a film here. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's every conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-iedPkmRRY And the thread in which I watched the whole thing and almost died, kind of: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2903479&pagenumber=4
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:Also why is the CIA so comfy with al qaeda and why is it so easy for them to escape jails and prisons? Even if that's a legitimate question, the problem with every 9/11 conspiracy theory I've read is that no matter if you have one or a hundred legitimate questions of the official story that doesn't mean you can just automatically jump to the conclusion that your alternate explanation is valid or supported. You're right, though, that the drive to feel superior because you know better than the people around you isn't limited to conspiracy theorists and it applies to many of the posts in this thread as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
It's been pointed out that the government wouldn't have hid from shooting down United 93 because it would have made them look competent. I come at it from an additional angle: is there any sane person who would have objected to shooting it down? Was there any person in the government stupid enough to think that the American people would have flipped out if it had been shot down? Of course not. The other thing about 9/11 and the "need" for conspiracy -- it was a loving conspiracy! A massive, batshit, too strange for fiction, Tom Clancy-level conspiracy. Jesus, you've even got a wealthy, shadowy, and charismatic leader hiding in a secret location and directing his minions, who were hand-selected and trained for years. Bin Laden would be right at home in a James Bond movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:It's been pointed out that the government wouldn't have hid from shooting down United 93 because it would have made them look competent. I come at it from an additional angle: is there any sane person who would have objected to shooting it down? Was there any person in the government stupid enough to think that the American people would have flipped out if it had been shot down? Of course not. There would probably have been a few people yelling about the government killing American civilians on American soil, no matter the reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Panda Bear posted:I feel like this stuff is a lot more interesting than what everyone is talking about but it seems like you're all just satisfied in asserting your intellectual dominance over "conspiracy theorists" (of which I have met few in real life compared with people whose worldviews strive towards an accordance with logic) and (I will say this for the second time) accepting a literal schizophrenic as some sort of authority on conspiracies and "conspiracy theorists." This thread really belongs in GBS with the way it's being handled. Just because you once heard some guy say that he thinks missiles blew up WTC or whatever doesn't mean that everyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or some sort of conspiracy is an idiot or not knowledgable or whatever. It's loving occam's razor. If you want to terrorize your populous into doing what-the-gently caress ever you want, keep it loving simple and easy to explain. You can explain that a bunch of terrorists set up bombs and blew them the gently caress up all over the country, easy. There's hardly any holes, hardly any way anyone can make a credible conspiracy theory solely in that plan. Hell, you can defuse a few of them and be the great heroes! Logically it makes no sense to make up this grandiose scheme that could be hosed up if one small little thing goes wrong, unless literally everybody is in on it. There has not been one person coming forwards to say that they were part of the op to put bombs in the WTC, There has not been one person whom has said that they were part of this conspiracy. Do you honestly think that all the people that had to be paid off for this to happen, would not have a crisis of conscience? They are after all responsible for the biggest mass murder in the history of this nation. If you want to discuss conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and bullshit logic, then we're going to point out the holes and bullshit logic. If you continue to try and peddle them even though they've been proven to be poo poo, we're going to make fun of you. There's no real malice behind it, it's just kind of what SA does when confronted with refusal to listen to logic. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
This might be a bit of a tangent but can someone explain to me the whole "gold stored under WTC 7" conspiracy? Googling anything leads to a bunch of LARGEST GOLD HEIST IN US HISTORY bullshit and I'm trying to understand what exactly the truth of that one is. Just a vault for a couple of banks? Hearing from a normally competent person that someone had everyone working on the site stop for a day to get bulldozers in to extract gold was kind of depressing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Weird BIAS posted:This might be a bit of a tangent but can someone explain to me the whole "gold stored under WTC 7" conspiracy? Googling anything leads to a bunch of LARGEST GOLD HEIST IN US HISTORY bullshit and I'm trying to understand what exactly the truth of that one is. Just a vault for a couple of banks? One of the largest gold respositories in the world was in the WTC basement. Obviously, this became the prime motive for some alternate explanations, because Bad Guys loving love gold and stealing gold (see: the Illuminati, cowboys in black hats, Bond villains etc.) Don't think too hard about how this successful bank heist involved crashing thousands of tons of twisted flaming wreckage directly on top of the vault you wish to loot. After a few weeks of clearing the site the gold was removed, safe and sound (if you trust the dishonest Jewish media, of course.) The conspiracy is based in reading differing accounts of the value of the stored metals, because those articles are certainly accurate and in no way misleading or misinterpreted. The simplest explanation is that the actual value of the metal changed on a daily basis and the conspiracy crowd doesn't have the proper information, but it's not like a little hurdle like lack of information is going to stop anyone from wild speculation. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:It's loving occam's razor. If you want to terrorize your populous into doing what-the-gently caress ever you want, keep it loving simple and easy to explain. You can explain that a bunch of terrorists set up bombs and blew them the gently caress up all over the country, easy. There's hardly any holes, hardly any way anyone can make a credible conspiracy theory solely in that plan. Hell, you can defuse a few of them and be the great heroes! Forget a crisis of conscience, if someone credible came forward and laid out the grand shadow government conspiracy to thermite the towers they would get super famous and be on every talk show and news channel in the developed world. I find it really hard to believe that nobody involved thought to themselves "oh boy think of the book deal I could get out of blowing the whistle on this poo poo" EDIT: Popular Thug Drink posted:One of the largest gold respositories in the world was in the WTC basement. Obviously, this became the prime motive for some alternate explanations, because Bad Guys loving love gold and stealing gold (see: the Illuminati, cowboys in black hats, Bond villains etc.) Don't think too hard about how this successful bank heist involved crashing thousands of tons of twisted flaming wreckage directly on top of the vault you wish to loot. After a few weeks of clearing the site the gold was removed, safe and sound (if you trust the dishonest Jewish media, of course.) You forgot about the Annunaki, who need all Earth's gold to repair the atmosphere of their dying planet. And you KNOW those guys would have the super advanced space weapon death ray and holographic projection technology to fake the whole thing. Chromatic Toucanet fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:One of the largest gold respositories in the world was in the WTC basement. Obviously, this became the prime motive for some alternate explanations, because Bad Guys loving love gold and stealing gold (see: the Illuminati, cowboys in black hats, Bond villains etc.) Don't think too hard about how this successful bank heist involved crashing thousands of tons of twisted flaming wreckage directly on top of the vault you wish to loot. After a few weeks of clearing the site the gold was removed, safe and sound (if you trust the dishonest Jewish media, of course.) Although from what I understand there was an attempt of some sort to get into the vault which failed but resulted in the National Guard being called in to guard it while the precious metals were packed up and moved elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Although from what I understand there was an attempt of some sort to get into the vault which failed but resulted in the National Guard being called in to guard it while the precious metals were packed up and moved elsewhere. Where did you read this? I doubt that your recollection is accurate, given that the site was swarming with public safety personnel and covered in thousands of tons of jagged flaming metal. Not exactly the best conditions in which to secretly remove large volumes of precious metals. Obviously it's really difficult to search for accurate information about anything where the mundane truth has far less hits than the crazy speculation but I just don't see how anyone could have made a serious attempt to access the vaults after poo poo started going down. EDIT: I found this article, which isn't setting off any crazy alarms for me. So it looks like a couple opportunits tried and failed to enter the vault, which makes loads more sense than some grand conspiracy. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Where did you read this? I doubt that your recollection is accurate, given that the site was swarming with public safety personnel and covered in thousands of tons of jagged flaming metal. Not exactly the best conditions in which to secretly remove large volumes of precious metals. Obviously it's really difficult to search for accurate information about anything where the mundane truth has far less hits than the crazy speculation but I just don't see how anyone could have made a serious attempt to access the vaults after poo poo started going down. It's so long ago. I just remember reading about it sometime in 2001, probably late-September/early-October. And yeah, that NYT article looks like what I remember reading. Just mixed up the principals by saying "National Guard" when it was actually NYPD and FDNY guys doing the moving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Sick_Boy posted:Might as well throw this clusterfuck of a film here. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's every conspiracy theory. At a perfectly reasonable and not at all insane 5 hours, I'm sure that did nearly kill you. Can I ask if drugs were involved? Wow. I'm excited to kill some time over the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
The Huffington Post has a good piece called Like Sandy Hook, the Washington Navy Yard Shooting Will Soon Be Co-opted By Conspiracy TheoristsPaul Vale posted:Right now a film is being cut for YouTube. Within the edit, clips from various media broadcasts of Monday's navy yard shooting in Washington DC are being selectively stitched together. The film will start by suggesting a deception has occurred, one wrought on the American people by shadowy, unseen forces. It will distance itself from other conspiracy theory videos, purporting to show "just the facts" about the events at the naval dockyard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Mass Shooting conspiracies are like a case study of the entire 'false flag' idea. It is a political tool to convince people not to react in the expected way. For example I think alot of 9/11 truthers were primarily trying to get people to reject Bush and the War on Terror (but going about it in a terrible way). With mass shootings it is obvious what political groups benefit from a false flag narrative - and they are influential enough that it actually works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yup, it was a good video, addressed most of my skepticism. Thanks for posting it, Amused to Death. Wikipedia blames the collapse on the raging fire which was allowed to spread due to complete lack of water. This caused the metal to expand (not melt) and eventually resulted in collapse wikipedia posted:NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[13]
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:
Not on my end of the deal (jokes about popcorn buckets of pills notwithstanding). Can't speak for Creepy Conspiracy Lady. Keep in mind the commentary is full of typos and mistakes for various reasons: it was written "live", I had a huge fever through most of it and the film was killing my brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Fuzzyjello posted:I had a similar experience with Glenn Beck. Tell me more. I am genuinely curious about how you got out of this hole and where you're at currently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
It was asked earlier in the thread if the tower 7 stuff was bullshit and I mentioned I had a classmate who was in WT7 evacuating it before it collapsed and that he took some photos.  Sorry about a photo of a photo. I couldn't find the digital image and don't have a color scanner. This is well inside the building and if I remember right a floor up from ground. I seem to remember it being said that debris from the street was blown in and up several floors. I know this thread is more about the meta issue of truthers and not really about the events, but I figured it was relevant. Because I think a viable method of refuting truthers is pointing to individuals who actually participated in the events. I have four or five other photos that the distribution of was mostly limited to Kings Pointers and that aren't really out in circulation. If any wants them posted (again they be lovely photos of photos) just let me know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I have four or five other photos that the distribution of was mostly limited to Kings Pointers and that aren't really out in circulation. If any wants them posted (again they be lovely photos of photos) just let me know. You know what to do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
One think I can't understand about the conspiracy crowd is how they latch onto random politicians as being messengers of truth. Wesley Clark, Jim Traficant, Ron Paul (mostly Ron Paul), etc. I keep seeing "Jim Traficant stands up to Zionist Agenda" or "Wesley Clark reveals New World Order" videos of those guys whenever I'm looking for Youtube videos of political speeches.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:One think I can't understand about the conspiracy crowd is how they latch onto random politicians as being messengers of truth. Wesley Clark, Jim Traficant, Ron Paul (mostly Ron Paul), etc. I keep seeing "Jim Traficant stands up to Zionist Agenda" or "Wesley Clark reveals New World Order" videos of those guys whenever I'm looking for Youtube videos of political speeches. They need someone with authority they can point to who isn't just a prolific conspiracy writer. That said the Wesley Clark video is interesting because it is about NeoConservative arrogance - even though the NeoCons were completely at odds with Bush I's 'New World Order'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It was asked earlier in the thread if the tower 7 stuff was bullshit and I mentioned I had a classmate who was in WT7 evacuating it before it collapsed and that he took some photos. You . . . framed it and hung it on your wall?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Looks like a photo album to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
I've not had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been covered - I don't buy the 'they let happen as an excuse to invade Iraq' angle. There are far better reasons that could more easily of been manufactured (there's evidence, for example, that Saddam was set up to believe it would be just fine to invade Kuwait without intervention). That's probably already been covered, but what's interesting is that Al Queda and terrorism just wasn't in the UK narrative. It was always about Sadam's ability and desire to attack others in the region. That's why it always sounds strange to me when Americana say 9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq. No one wqs even suggesting a link in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 11:32
|
|