Foiled Coup?

As much as I detest Bush and his keepers I have trouble believing they would nuke a US city to to war in Iran. Besides even if they did want to do something like that why do Charleston? They might as well hit someplace with a large percentage of the opposition like say San Fransisco or something.

Well, they dont have to nuke a city, all they have todo is have a nuke turn up somewhere, have it foiled by the secret service and provide enuff 'evidance' that it looks like Iran had a hand in it and turn them into a viable target (I mean, if you can attack one country based on weapons which dont exist why not another?).

The "evidance" would have to be pretty good however, as I kinda hope the american people wont fall for another load of Iraq "evidance" again... (then again, given the amount of 'the goverment can do no wrong' people in the US that might be wishfull thinking... )

As for the target, well, assuming it happened nuking an opposition strong hold would just make the conspiracy nuts happy and "prove" to them it was self inflicted, however hit a reasonably large either goverment friendly or natural place and its harder to tie it together, because surely no one would hurt their supporters?

As to how likely this all is, well I dunno, as with all things there are haters on both side who'll stir up things, so without knowing how respected/trustworthy the places putting the news out are I wouldnt like to make a call... but then, if its not true, putting this out gives the terrorist something they can use, as any attack now could well look like this was true...

Ah, isnt politics such fun [wink]

Well, I don't think the world would kindly agree with another war on terrorism.

First of all, why are they making such a big problem out of new countries building their own nuclear facilities and making these bombs? The US has a gigantic arsenal of nukes, and plans on expanding it with newer, smaller versions.

On the other hand, the US swiftly forces Russia to decrease their nuclear stock-pile, and prevent other countries from obtaining these devices of 'mushrooms in the sky'.

Sure, people could use these weapons to vaporize a few 100,000 people faster than a mofo, but using these devices don't go unnoticed, and other countries have them too. This is what kept the cold war cold, fear for retaliation.

Iran is thought of as the "Axis of Evil" by the Bush administration. So, because Bush decided they're evil, they can't have the same toys as Bush does. Same accounts for North Korea.

These countries WILL get nukes when they want to, and nobody is going to stop them. There is a slight chance Iran already has nukes. How about Iran dropping a nuke directly into US terrory as retaliation? Or perhaps directly into Israel because they're US allies...

Toolmaker

Quote:

Original post by LessBread So what do you think of all this? Pure conspiracy fantasy?

Yes. Greg Screwloose prints what basically amounts to unsubstantiated gossip about this General - it is all supposition with nothing to back it up and the other articles pretty much just quote his article as "proof" to back theirs up. Yes it is possible the adultery isn't the real reason but possible isn't the same as probable. He could have been about to lead a coup, or be an alien from the planet Zarg or a mind slave of slug men from the centre of the earth. It's all possible but certainly not probable. As for the bomb that is simply another example - Anyone can come up with an alternative story about "what was going to happen" but it didn't and there isn't any support for the story. Without supporting evidence it is just that, a story.

The more widespread nuclear weapons become, the more likely they will be used in a conflict again which could lead to all out nuclear war this time. Not necessarily USA vs Russia but India vs Pakistan, Iran vs Israel etc etc... Also new nuclear powers diminish the prestige and influence of traditional nuke wielding countries so it's natural people don't really celebrate them in Washington or Cremlin. Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent and it has been claimed that unlike imaginery WMDs, real nukes actually prevent wars, but knowing the nature of people in power, It is likely that we'll get the nuclear war sooner or later.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread He May Have Been Ousted For Attempting To Thwart The Bush Administration Plans To Strike Iran. Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?. Iran Next, by way of Charleston?.

After looking at those sources, I couldn't help getting the mental image of an extraordinarily flimsy house of cards, all leaning against each other for support and ready to topple at the slightest breeze of scrutiny. Where's the beef?

Let's examine these so-called "sources". I think we can agree that the best way to judge the quality of an organization's reporting is to examine just that. So let's take the Information Clearinghouse, the one that's reporting the attack on Charleston. With article titles like Who Would Jesus Assassinate? and Bush Caves To Islamic Constitution, I think it's fair to say it's just a teensy bit biased in its disregard of the facts. (Oh, and it also links to the World Socialist website.)

How about the second one? Here's an article predicting that Kerry's guaranteed to win the 2004 election because he has secret inside ties to Norway's King Harald. Here's another one claiming that the death of Pat Tillman was, in fact, a "staged Psy-Op" designed to wring a few tears out of the American public, and that the Pentagon invented an entire cover story for his heroic death, while in reality he was -- wait for it -- raping 37 women.

Really, this crap is barely a notch above Weekly World News. I'm waiting for the breaking story about the 600-pound baby.

[Edited by - kSquared on August 24, 2005 8:30:05 PM]

Quote:

Original post by LessBread So what do you think of all this? Pure conspiracy fantasy? Or might there be something to it?

Given the nature of this administration, it's not outside the realm of possibility, but there would have to be more substance before I could begin to take it seriously. I do note, however, that there is as much factual basis for the claims you have presented as there was for the Whitewater charges against Clinton. I anxiously await the cries for impeachment. (yeah, I know, diversion of congressionally allocated funds wasn't enough to do the trick, but perhaps '90s logic is the route to holding aWol accountable for something, anything)

I keep a little venn diagram in my head to help me with these sorts of things. Now, the full version has some more variables, but here is a utilitatarian case of what I like to call my "OMG THE GOVERNMENT" venn-presented bullshit detector.

Hmmm, what to make of this? On the one hand, it's pretty hard to believe that the US elite would harm US citizens, particularly in such a spectacular manner. On the other hand, you have historical precedence:

From the horse's mouth: US Gov't experimenting on its own with radiation.

Quote:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS a listing, description, and selected references for documented human radiation experiments sponsored, supported, or performed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessors, including the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), and the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD).

Then there's this beauty: Operation Northwoods proposes killing Americans as a pretext for invading Cuba

From the declassified document:

Quote:

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronilogical order): (1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio. (2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on the base. (3) Capture Cuban (friendly) sabateurs inside the base. (4) Start riots near the entrance to the base (friendly Cubans). (5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. (6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabatage). (7) Lob morter shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations. (8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea of vicinity of Guantanamo City. (9) Capture militia group which storms the base. (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene. (11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)). b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. c. Commence large scale United States military operations. 3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

Then there's Smedly Butler, who refused to be part of a corporate plot to overthrow FDR. And there's so much more that's all been documented, include biowarfare against the West Coast.

---

Most people are historically ignorant, so the idea of real conspiracies against US citizens has no context. There's also the "tinfoil hat" meme, which ridicules the idea that people of like interest would work together to preserve those interests.

So what to do with this information? It certainly can't be true that all conspiracies are fact-based. But conservatives have often advised to judge by the content of character. I think the content of the Bush Administration's character-- which includes slaughtering 1800+ Americans and untold others on a lie-- makes this within the realm of possibility, and I also think it bears watching.

Quote:

Original post by kSquared After looking at those sources, I couldn't help getting the mental image of an extraordinarily flimsy house of cards, all leaning against each other for support and ready to topple at the slightest breeze of scrutiny. Where's the beef?

That's fair enough. The beef is circumstantial. The Hollings article, at ICH, carries the most water, imo. It's focus is on the potential for a war with Iran rather than a foiled coup. It's linked references are all from legit sources. It references the dismissal of General Byrnes in the context of speculation and puts the remainder of the allegation in the mouths of Szymanski and Lehrman. If Hollings could report these allegations as fact, you probably would have heard the story from some other source by now.

Quote:

Original post by kSquared Let's examine these so-called "sources". I think we can agree that the best way to judge the quality of an organization's reporting is to examine just that. So let's take the Information Clearinghouse, the one that's reporting the attack on Charleston. With article titles like Who Would Jesus Assassinate? and Bush Caves To Islamic Constitution, I think it's fair to say it's just a teensy bit biased in its disregard of the facts. (Oh, and it also links to the World Socialist website.)

I think the Jacobs essay (Who Would Jesus Assassinate?) asks a good question and makes a good point - there's something wrong with people like Pat Robertson. So too with the Direland blog, the Islamic foundation of the draft Iraqi Constitution make the whole excercise a sham. US troops were sent to Iraq to establish an Islamic Republic? I don't imagine that a lot of red-staters would be happy to find that out - which is probably why FoxNews hedged that part of the story. And apart from it's Marxist bent, what exactly do you find wrong with the World Socialist Web Site?

Quote:

Original post by kSquared How about the second one? Here's an article predicting that Kerry's guaranteed to win the 2004 election because he has secret inside ties to Norway's King Harald. Here's another one claiming that the death of Pat Tillman was, in fact, a "staged Psy-Op" designed to wring a few tears out of the American public, and that the Pentagon invented an entire cover story for his heroic death, while in reality he was -- wait for it -- raping 37 women. Really, this crap is barely a notch above Weekly World News. I'm waiting for the breaking story about the 600-pound baby.

Prison Planet is definitely iffy, but you didn't smear the Artic Beacon. Why not? Sure it covers UFO stories, but so does the History Channel. Szymanski's Byrne story repeats the coup allegations as allegations. The mainstream media runs with rumors all the time (Limbaugh promoted false theory that EPA regulations banning Freon caused space shuttle Columbia disaster), frequently repeats blatant falsehoods (Gibson falsely claimed Scopes trial was argued "successfully" by the defense) and/or stands by idly while their guests do so (Meet the Press guest host Gregory sat by while Lott issued falsehoods).

Oh, yeah, and by the way, there are such things as 600-pound babies, they just aren't human! [grin] Horses, tigers, motorcycles - they also tend to be fully grown and only their owners call them babies as a term of endearment. [grin]

They did not need 'evidence' to invade Iraq, did they?

Quote:

Original post by A_Borellus The more widespread nuclear weapons become, the more likely they will be used in a conflict again which could lead to all out nuclear war this time. Not necessarily USA vs Russia but India vs Pakistan, Iran vs Israel etc etc...

Quote:

Also new nuclear powers diminish the prestige and influence of traditional nuke wielding countries so it's natural people don't really celebrate them in Washington or Cremlin. Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent and it has been claimed that unlike imaginery WMDs, real nukes actually prevent wars, but knowing the nature of people in power, It is likely that we'll get the nuclear war sooner or later.

If by a 'deterrent' you mean that those who ahve them can then do as they like, then yeah.
Having a nuke means you can threaten people.

Do the following:
Start a list of all nations that have nukes.
Then go through that list and check those that have used them, not only in tests but also against people.
Then go through them and note how many countries that country invaded/screwed with.
Last connect lines between the supplyers and recievers of nukes and their affiliations.

Notice anything?

haha, dissenting generals don't get fired.


they dissapear.

Quote:

Original post by PnP Bios haha, dissenting generals don't get fired. they dissapear.

For some reason that reminds me of a saying from Elizabethan England:

Quote:

Treason doth never prosper, for if it prosper none dare call it treason.

IMHO I think this falls in the same league as stories about how the World Trade centre attacks were staged so that the United States could invade Iraq/Iran/Afganistan. I'm no big fan of the Bush administration, but even I don't believe that they would murder so many of their own people for political expedient. Maybe history will prove me wrong, but I don't think so.

Jon

Postcript: I'm reading a book at the moment called "Collosus", about how the USA is, and always has been, an Empire; a sucessor in some ways to the British and the Roman Empires; and that this is a good thing, given the available alternatives. The author is doing a pretty good job with his argument at the moment. Anyway, I've got to a section where the author discusses the parallels with the Roman Republic; the author mentions that the Republic existed for over 400 years before Caesar became its first Impirator. The USA has existed for a little over 200. Maybe the idea of a coup is not so far fetched after all.

that's the funniest conspiracy theory, well for at least today. They do get funnier every time. That's, if it's a theory... or is it... hmmm...

Damn the Internets!

Imagine, firing a high ranking officer an the verge of getting retired on trumped up charges of adultery, most probably with a 20 something sex bomb, because he knows to much about a plot of nuking a american city, as a pretext to invade Iran.

Neocons are nuts, but come on...

nuts, sure, but it also does a good job at destorying any credibility he might have had. If in a few years he had retired and said all this people might well have sat up and taken notice, now it looks more like an old man with an axe to grind...

When it comes to politics its generally best not to rule anything out, more so when it comes to public perception [smile]

What is sad is that education isn't equiping people to make any sort of value judgment on the information put before them. Something appears on the internet and people believe it without actually trying to weigh the sources and evidence.

1. Who is the person writting the article - are they a reliable source of information?
2. What have they written before - has any of it ever been shown to be credible/true?
3. Have they followed good journalistic practice and sought coroboration for their story or just based it on a lone anonymous source?
4. Is there any actual evidence?
5. How is the piece written - you can tell a lot from the words that people use. Does it state that something "is", "was", "will be" or is it all "could be", "might be".

Quote:

Original post by Obscure What is sad is that education isn't equiping people to make any sort of value judgment on the information put before them. Something appears on the internet and people believe it without actually trying to weigh the sources and evidence.

Has anyone here said they believed the story without a doubt? What is equally sad is that people see a story that goes against their beliefs and immediately write it off as impossible and anyone that entertains it as possible as nuts. They don't bother to think that parts of the story might be true, so they don't even bother to separate out those parts.

There is something fishy about the dismissal of Gen. Byrnes. They fired a 4 star General 3 months short of retirement for adultery when they looked the other way regarding torture at Abu Ghraib etc?

At any rate, here's how I see it - the fact that the story has been exposed - regardless of whether it's treated as fanciful or not - blows the possibility that if it was true that the plot it describes will happen. That is, if there was a plan to fake an attack on Charleston to provide an excuse to attack Iran, it won't work now. Plausible deniability has been denied. If Cheney wants to attack Iran, he'll have to figure out a different approach to it.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Obscure What is sad is that education isn't equiping people to make any sort of value judgment on the information put before them. Something appears on the internet and people believe it without actually trying to weigh the sources and evidence. Has anyone here said they believed the story without a doubt? What is equally sad is that people see a story that goes against their beliefs and immediately write it off as impossible and anyone that entertains it as possible as nuts. They don't bother to think that parts of the story might be true, so they don't even bother to separate out those parts. There is something fishy about the dismissal of Gen. Byrnes. They fired a 4 star General 3 months short of retirement for adultery when they looked the other way regarding torture at Abu Ghraib etc? At any rate, here's how I see it - the fact that the story has been exposed - regardless of whether it's treated as fanciful or not - blows the possibility that if it was true that the plot it describes will happen. That is, if there was a plan to fake an attack on Charleston to provide an excuse to attack Iran, it won't work now. Plausible deniability has been denied. If Cheney wants to attack Iran, he'll have to figure out a different approach to it.

Obscure posed several valid and completely objective questions intended to determine the validity of any article. Your comments should in no way be directed towards his post at all. He wasn't immediately dismissing anything or making any claims of anybody entertaining it's possibility. He was simply saying don't take anything at face value, but evaluate the validity of the sources and evidence.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Has anyone here said they believed the story without a doubt? What is equally sad is that people see a story that goes against their beliefs and immediately write it off as impossible and anyone that entertains it as possible as nuts. They don't bother to think that parts of the story might be true, so they don't even bother to separate out those parts.

This happens to be true about most things in life.

Quote:

There is something fishy about the dismissal of Gen. Byrnes. They fired a 4 star General 3 months short of retirement for adultery when they looked the other way regarding torture at Abu Ghraib etc?

A good Christian General commiting adultery, tut tut... But torturing someone whose already going to hell? Who cares. It's an image thing really, the current regime has always tried to enforce those good Christian values, so of course you would fire a General that commited adultery.

Quote:

At any rate, here's how I see it - the fact that the story has been exposed - regardless of whether it's treated as fanciful or not - blows the possibility that if it was true that the plot it describes will happen. That is, if there was a plan to fake an attack on Charleston to provide an excuse to attack Iran, it won't work now. Plausible deniability has been denied. If Cheney wants to attack Iran, he'll have to figure out a different approach to it.

Actually, no. In fact, this article would actually make it more likely (if there were such a plan in the works) to succeed. People would point to those articles and say: "Look, you gave the Iranians an idea and a scapegoat!"