10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

[Danno 1,228]

Looks like we caught a live one.

Actually, they are all over the place.

For example let me quote Nowhereman;

"As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

How could a President "use" 9/11 without ever saying it?

Are we really to believe Bush was ramping the country up for war... explaining the reasons at least weekly and somehow he forgot to mention the one reason that would win folks over?

Not only have I not heard Bush link 9/11 and Iraq..... I have to believe no one else has either because every time I ask for this most basic evidence it never appears.

Isn't there enough Bush "was" responsible for that we don't need to make ####### up?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Looks like we caught a live one.

Actually, they are all over the place.

For example let me quote Nowhereman;

"As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

How could a President "use" 9/11 without ever saying it?

Are we really to believe Bush was ramping the country up for war... explaining the reasons at least weekly and somehow he forgot to mention the one reason that would win folks over?

Not only have I not heard Bush link 9/11 and Iraq..... I have to believe no one else has either because every time I ask for this most basic evidence it never appears.

Isn't there enough Bush "was" responsible for that we don't need to make ####### up?

Sorry Danno, wron, wrong, wrong, Bush definitely linked Iraq to Al Queda. Here are his exact words, which you are correct, does not out right blame Iraq for 9/11 but definitively includes going to war in Iraq as a solution to the global war on terror, plenty good enough to refute your claim the allegation is '#######.'

Transcript: George Bush's speech on Iraq

Following is the text of an address given by President Bush in Cincinnati [2002]

"Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."

source of speech transcript, Bush playing the 9/11 card on invading Iraq

[Danno 1,228]

Why don't you highlight the part where Bush Claims Iraq was in on the planning and execution of 9/11, you can't because it's not there.

And this is your evidence to base a conspiracy?

[nowhereman 1]

Looks like we caught a live one.

Actually, they are all over the place.

For example let me quote Nowhereman;

"As for the Bush conspiracies the only one I hold as true (and it's not really a conspiracy) is that he used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq

How could a President "use" 9/11 without ever saying it?

Are we really to believe Bush was ramping the country up for war... explaining the reasons at least weekly and somehow he forgot to mention the one reason that would win folks over?

Not only have I not heard Bush link 9/11 and Iraq..... I have to believe no one else has either because every time I ask for this most basic evidence it never appears.

Isn't there enough Bush "was" responsible for that we don't need to make ####### up?

Danno you are so freaking bias you are delusional. Bush DID try to link Iraq & 9/11 (Ready4One showed some examples)... I don't recall if that was before or after the WMD reason fell through (I'm guessing after). As for making ####### up I find that accusation offensive... I actually served in Iraq & I studied the Iraq War during my military education so to dismiss my opinions as the ramblings of a liberal is pretty ridiculous.

[nowhereman 1]

Here's a web site detailing the hundreds of false statements made by the Bush administration either claiming that Iraq had WMD's or attempting to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda (which is essentially linking Iraq to 9/11 since Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack): http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

[NickD 203]

Here's a web site detailing the hundreds of false statements made by the Bush administration either claiming that Iraq had WMD's or attempting to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda (which is essentially linking Iraq to 9/11 since Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack): http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

To be a politician you have to be nebulous, but he definitely inferred we or he is, going to fight terrorism over there, instead of year. And in case you weren't aware, our troops, including my 30 old neighbor woman, a member of the guard, is there at this exact moment. In his closing speech on that radio show, said it was a disappointment to him that Iraq did not have WMD's.

How does it feel to be both naive and prejudiced? But I am no holding this against you, people with these psychological problems do not know that they are that way and you can't tell them they are that way.

[alienlovechild 75]

And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

That's Bush's "Saddam caused 9/11" statement?

Danno you are so freaking bias you are delusional. Bush DID try to link Iraq & 9/11 (Ready4One showed some examples)... I don't recall if that was before or after the WMD reason fell through (I'm guessing after). As for making ####### up I find that accusation offensive... I actually served in Iraq & I studied the Iraq War during my military education so to dismiss my opinions as the ramblings of a liberal is pretty ridiculous.

You guys still can't find a simple Bush statement on Saddam causing 9/11 because you're all delusional idiots. I even had the quote to the opposite effect but you can't get beyond the Bush "lied" myth for years.

Nowhereman, did you resign your commission or not reenlist in protest, if not why not? You Iraq vets (just you actually) apparently didn't have access to the Internet or any other source besides Stars and Stripes I guess. You "studied" the Iraq War as part of military education? Didn't they teach you anything about why Iraq was bombed in 1981 by Israel, why CLINTON bombed Iraq, had sanctions and had no fly zones for EIGHT years? Yeah, we know the Bushes were controlling ol' Bill, too. Did they EVER tell you why Saddam went to war over WMDs?

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Here's a web site detailing the hundreds of false statements made by the Bush administration either claiming that Iraq had WMD's or attempting to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda (which is essentially linking Iraq to 9/11 since Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack): http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

what is your definition of a WMD?

[Danno 1,228]

And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

That's Bush's "Saddam caused 9/11" statement?

Danno you are so freaking bias you are delusional. Bush DID try to link Iraq & 9/11 (Ready4One showed some examples)... I don't recall if that was before or after the WMD reason fell through (I'm guessing after). As for making ####### up I find that accusation offensive... I actually served in Iraq & I studied the Iraq War during my military education so to dismiss my opinions as the ramblings of a liberal is pretty ridiculous.

You guys still can't find a simple Bush statement on Saddam causing 9/11 because you're all delusional idiots. I even had the quote to the opposite effect but you can't get beyond the Bush "lied" myth for years.

Nowhereman, did you resign your commission or not reenlist in protest, if not why not? You Iraq vets (just you actually) apparently didn't have access to the Internet or any other source besides Stars and Stripes I guess. You "studied" the Iraq War as part of military education? Didn't they teach you anything about why Iraq was bombed in 1981 by Israel, why CLINTON bombed Iraq, had sanctions and had no fly zones for EIGHT years? Yeah, we know the Bushes were controlling ol' Bill, too. Did they EVER tell you why Saddam went to war over WMDs?

..Yeah, what he just said.

[nowhereman 1]

Here's a web site detailing the hundreds of false statements made by the Bush administration either claiming that Iraq had WMD's or attempting to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda (which is essentially linking Iraq to 9/11 since Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack): http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

To be a politician you have to be nebulous, but he definitely inferred we or he is, going to fight terrorism over there, instead of year. And in case you weren't aware, our troops, including my 30 old neighbor woman, a member of the guard, is there at this exact moment. In his closing speech on that radio show, said it was a disappointment to him that Iraq did not have WMD's.

How does it feel to be both naive and prejudiced? But I am no holding this against you, people with these psychological problems do not know that they are that way and you can't tell them they are that way.

Naive & prejudiced? Based on your comments I would say the exact thing about you.

[nowhereman 1]

And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

That's Bush's "Saddam caused 9/11" statement?

Danno you are so freaking bias you are delusional. Bush DID try to link Iraq & 9/11 (Ready4One showed some examples)... I don't recall if that was before or after the WMD reason fell through (I'm guessing after). As for making ####### up I find that accusation offensive... I actually served in Iraq & I studied the Iraq War during my military education so to dismiss my opinions as the ramblings of a liberal is pretty ridiculous.

You guys still can't find a simple Bush statement on Saddam causing 9/11 because you're all delusional idiots. I even had the quote to the opposite effect but you can't get beyond the Bush "lied" myth for years.

Nowhereman, did you resign your commission or not reenlist in protest, if not why not? You Iraq vets (just you actually) apparently didn't have access to the Internet or any other source besides Stars and Stripes I guess. You "studied" the Iraq War as part of military education? Didn't they teach you anything about why Iraq was bombed in 1981 by Israel, why CLINTON bombed Iraq, had sanctions and had no fly zones for EIGHT years? Yeah, we know the Bushes were controlling ol' Bill, too. Did they EVER tell you why Saddam went to war over WMDs?

ALC you are either blind or painfully ignorant (same goes for your buddy Danno). First of all I joined the Army way before Bush became President, so to suggest that I resign my commission because of one bad President is beyond ridiculous. Secondly Iraq had WMDs at one time (weapons of mass destruction to answer Charles' question... chemical, biological or nuclear... I'm sure he knew that already) but there was strong evidence that he got rid of them prior to 2003 (evidence that the Bush administration ignored).

Your entire ilk are blatant hypocrites... the right wing (including most of the VJ right) called anyone who disagreed with & disapproved of the Bush administration unpatriotic yet you clowns have been bashing Obama before he even got into office. By your own warped standards that makes you unpatriotic as well.

[Peikko 1,575]

No weapons in Iraq? We'll find them in Iran

By Neil Mackay

Glasgow Sunday Herald

June 1, 2003

Iraq: They told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but they've found none. Were they lying?

THE spooks are on the offensive. In their eyes, it still remains to be seen whether Tony Blair lied to the British public by claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but as the Prime Minister's own intelligence officers now say, Parliament was misled and subjected to spin, exaggeration and bare-faced flim-flammery.

It is now seven weeks since the war in Iraq ground to a confused, stuttering halt and still not one WMD has been found. A couple of possible mobile bio-weapons labs have been located, but a close examination showed they hadn't seen so much as a speck of anthrax or nerve gas. Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear before the invasion that the UK was entering the war to disarm Saddam. We were specifically told this was not a battle about regime change, but a battle to 'eradicate the threat of weapons of mass destruction'.

Ironically, it was the ultra-hawkish US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who let the cat out of the bag when he said on Wednesday: 'It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.' If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 and there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war. Rumsfeld's claim that Iraq might have destroyed its weapons makes a mockery of the way the US treated the UN's chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix. The US effectively told him he wasn't up to the job and the Iraqis had fooled him.

To add to Blair's woes, Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary and the man credited with being the architect of the Iraqi war, told American magazine Vanity Fair last week that the Bush administration only focused on alleged WMDs because it was a politically convenient means of justifying the removal of Saddam. 'For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,' the leading neo-conservative hawk said, 'because it was the one reason everyone could agree on'.

Then to cap it all, a secret transcript of a discussion between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came to light on Friday showing that, even while they were telling the world that Saddam was armed and dangerous, the pair were worried that the claims about Iraq's WMD programme couldn't be proved. Powell reportedly told Straw he hoped that when the facts came out they wouldn't 'explode in their faces'.

So how on earth did the British people come to believe Saddam was sitting in one of his palaces with an itchy trigger finger poised above a button marked 'WMD'? And if there were no WMDs, then why did we fight the war? The answer lies with Rumsfeld.

With September 11 as his ideological backdrop, Rumsfeld decided in autumn 2001 to establish a new intelligence agency, independent of the CIA and the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). He put his deputy, Wolfowitz, in charge. The pair were dissatisfied with the failure of the CIA among others to provide firm proof of both Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal and links to al-Qaeda.

Regime change in Iraq had been a long-term goal of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Even before Bush took over the presidency in September 2000 the pair were planning 'regime change' in Iraq. As founders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the USA's most extreme neo-con think-tanks, the pair were behind what has been described as the 'blueprint' for US global domination -- a document called Rebuilding America's Defences.

Other founders of the PNAC include: Vice-President ####### Cheney; Bush's younger brother Jeb; and Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. The Rebuilding America's Defences document stated: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. It also calls for America to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' and describes US armed forces as 'the calvary on the new American frontier'. The UN is sidelined as well, with the PNAC saying that peace-keeping missions demand 'American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'.

That was the policy blueprint, but to deliver it Rumsfeld turned to the Office of Special Plans. Put simply, the OSP was told to come up with the evidence of WMD to give credence to US military intervention. But what do conventional intelligence experts make of the OSP? Colonel Patrick Lang is a former chief of human intelligence for the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s. He was also the DIA's chief of Middle East intelligence and was regularly in Iraq. He said of the OSP : 'This office had a great deal of influence in a number of places in Washington in a way that seemed to me to be excessive and rather ill-advised.

'The regular organisations of the intelligence community have very rigorous rules for how you evaluate information and resources, and tend to take a conservative view of analytic positions because they're going to dictate government decisions.

'That wasn't satisfactory in Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon so he set up a separate office to review this data, and the people in this office, although they're described as intelligence people, are by and large congressional staffers. They seemed to me not to have deceived intentionally but to have seen in the data what they believe is true. I think it's a very risky thing to do.'

Most of the OSP intelligence was based on debriefings with Iraqi exiles -- a tactic, says Lang, which is highly questionable as the exiles have clear, personal agendas that might taint their claims. But even if the US was using selective intelligence to justify war against Iraq, does that mean that Tony Blair was also being briefed with OSP intelligence? According to Melvin Goodman, veteran CIA analyst and current professor of national security at the National War College in Washington, the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Goodman says that there is 'no question' that Blair was 'brought along at the highest level' by Bush and Rumsfeld, adding that the Prime Minister was 'vulnerable because of his own evangelical bent' over bringing democracy to the Middle East.

That US view has been corroborated by British intelligence sources who have confirmed to the Sunday Herald that the UK government was being influenced by the selective intelligence emanating from the OSP. Senior UK intelligence sources representing a range of views from across all the spying services said: 'There was absolute scepticism among British intelligence over the invasion of Iraq. The intelligence we were working on was basically of a technical nature coming from satellite surveillance and eavesdropping. The only real Humint (human intelligence from agents) that we had was from Iraqi exiles and we were sceptical of their motives.'

It was this 'tainted' information which was used to compile the crucial dossier on Iraq which Blair presented to MPs last September. The most sensational part of the dossier claimed that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes -- a claim based on one single Iraqi defector. A British intelligence source said: 'The information had been lying around for ages. The problem was we didn't really trust the defectors as they were working in their own self-interest and really doing their master's bidding -- by that I mean us, the UK. They also had one eye to the future and their role in any new Iraqi government.'

The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

Another source -- an official involved in preparing the Iraqi dossier for Blair -- told the BBC: 'Most people in intelligence weren't happy with [the dossier] as it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward.' Other sources said they accepted there was a 'small WMD programme' in Iraq, but not one that would either threaten the West or even Saddam's neighbours. Another said they were 'very unhappy' with the dossier, others said they were 'pissed off' and one described the claim that WMDs could be ready in 45 minutes as 'complete and utter bollocks'.

The Sunday Herald was told: 'The spooks were being asked to write this stuff. The dossier had been lying around for about six months. When it came time for publication Downing Street said it wasn't exciting or convincing enough. The message was that it didn't cut the mustard in terms of PR as there wasn't much more in it than a discerning newspaper reader would know.

'The intelligence services were asked if there was anything else that could be added into it. Intelligence told Downing Street that the 45-minute claim hadn't been added in as it only came from one source who was thought to be wrong.

'The intelligence services were asked to go back and do a rewrite even though Downing Street was told the 45 minute claim was unconvincing.' Another intelligence source was quoted as telling the BBC that they had been asked to rewrite the dossier as well to make it 'sexier'. The intelligence source said the dossier had been 'transformed' a week before publication. Blair has rejected each and every one of these claims as 'completely absurd'.

In a further curious twist, an intelligence source claimed the real 'over-arching strategic reason' for the war was the road map to peace, designed to settle the running sore of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The source said: 'I believe that Britain and America see the road map as fundamental. They were being told by Ariel Sharon's government that Israel would not play ball until Saddam was out of the picture. That was the condition. So he had to go.'

Meanwhile, the blame game is now well and truly under way and someone is going to end up carrying the can. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said: 'This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time ... It was the moral justification for war. I think the world is owed an accounting.'

CIA director George Tenet has just over a month to get his act together before the House and Senate Intelligence committees start hearings into the nature of intelligence and the Iraq war. Like Downing Street, the Pentagon strongly denies it manipulated information.

Here in the UK, more than 70 MPs have signed an early day motion calling on the government to justify its case for war by publishing the intelligence on which it was based. Labour rebels are threatening to report Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament. This would force Blair to answer emergency questions in the Commons.

The government, however, has hit back by starting to spin against its own intelligence agencies -- a potentially deadly tactic. One senior minister was quoted as saying anonymously: 'If we don't find weapons of mass destruction, it will be Britain's biggest ever intelligence failure. We would have to look at the whole set up of how we gather intelligence in the future. It would have serious consequences.' Peter Kilfoyle, the former defence minister who is organising the backbench protests, said: 'The only cogent reason that was offered for the war was weapons of mass destruction, which the government said could be utilised within 45 minutes. It seems to me that, at the very least, evidence was used selectively from intelligence reports to fit the case.' He added that failure to prove the case for war was built on solid ground would 'shatter trust' in the government. 'Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon are all barristers,' Kilfoyle said. 'They know very well a case based on this sort of information would be laughed out of court.'

Five steps to the world according to Bush

1. PNAC

The ultra-hawkish neo-conservative think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, was set up in 1997 by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, ####### Cheney, Jeb Bush (George W's brother) and Paul Wolfowitz. Its over-arching aim is the establishment of a 'global Pax Americana' -- a re-ordered world squarely under the control of the USA. To achieve this grand strategic goal, the PNAC says these steps must be achieved:

· Saddam deposed

· Afghanistan invaded

· Arafat isolated

· Syria cowed

· UN sidelined

· Iran punished

As the world has seen, nearly all of these aims have been achieved.

2. The Office of Special Plans

This new intelligence agency was set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Frustrated by the failure of conventional spying organisations such as the CIA to come up with proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden, the OSP cherry-picked intelligence from mountains of raw data to build the intelligence picture its political masters required.

3. Bush and Blair

With Bush fully briefed by Rumsfeld using intelligence from the OSP, the US was convinced it had a case to prosecute a war against Iraq. But could America take its allies with it? Blair was briefed at length by Bush and other leading members of the US administration using OSP information. The British intelligence services were not coming up with the same sort of information that the OSP were collating. Nevertheless, Blair threw his lot in with Bush, banking on the OSP intelligence.

4. Troops and conflict

With Afghanistan under US control after the first major battle in the seemingly endless war on terror, Bush and Blair were able to topple Saddam using the OSP intelligence to take the public with them. With Iraq occupied, the hawks have turned their attentions to Iran, with claims that the 'Mullahcracy', in the words of the neo-conservatives, had a weapons of mass destruction programme and was tied to al-Qaeda. Sound familiar?

5. Pax Americana

This is the ultimate aim of the neo-conservatives now running the United States. America stands as the world's policeman, the US has no powerful rivals and global capitalism flourishes: the PNAC's project is complete.

Link

[Peikko 1,575]

Remarks by US Senator Robert C. Byrd

What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

Link

[eros_EX_Plumber 0]

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;

Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;

Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;

Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;

Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;

May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;

Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';

Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;

Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;

At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;

Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

» Wikipedia

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Sound like RELIGION to me....never mind conspiracy.....hahahahaah

[nowhereman 1]

Remarks by US Senator Robert C. Byrd

What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

Link

Well said & that is a big part of what I am trying to say. The war on terror is real (make no mistake about it). Saddam was an evil man who was certainly a disruptive factor in the Middle East but like you said no credible evidence was ever produced linking Iraq with 9/11 (yet people like Danno & ALC refuse to admit obvious truths, such as the Bush administration's lame attempt to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda, which in turn links Iraq to 9/11).

I also take great offense to comments made by NickD who suggested I had psychological issues because I wasn't lock-step with the policies of the Bush administration & I denounce his suggestion that I don't support the troops in Iraq (as I said I served in Iraq so this accusation is absolutely frivolous). Let me be crystal clear on what I am trying to convey... you can love your country, serve in the military & at the same time disagree with the policies of the President. Our country was built on freedom of speech & I am exercising that right. You may disagree with my opinions & of course that is your right as well, but to suggest that I am clueless, unpatriotic or mentally unbalanced because I felt that former President Bush had ulterior motives & wasn't honest with the American people (yet these same people bash Obama consistently) is at the very least disingenuous & I would argue hypocritical.