--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > > <snip> > > > >>> What's confusing you, Shemp, is that liberals > >>> don't march in lockstep. They're actually not > >>> afraid to disagree with each other. The more > >>> reasonable of us don't buy into all the > >>> conspiracy theories, for example. > >>> > >>> > >> More reasonable? Try "more gullible." Those who > >> don't "entertain" "supposed" conspiracy theories are > >> often doing so to maintain some kind > >> of facade that they are "the voice of reason." > >> > > > > And some of us think you conspiracy nuts have > > fallen for sexy disinformation and are missing > > the *real* dirty doings, just as you were > > intended to. > > So if I had said years ago that the Gulf of Tolkin was a false flag > operation you would have called me a "conspiracy nut", correct?
No idea. I have no memory of what kinds of information were available then. I'd have had to read a representative amount of the arguments pro and con first and decide which was more believable, and I wasn't following the news closely at the time. > As you > should know by now it has been admitted by the government > that it was a "false flag" operation. Some of us just do > our homework on this stuff and remember history. :) Yeah, and others of us don't just assume that if they did something before, they must have done it again in a similar situation, ignoring all the evidence and reasons why it's unlikely that this time was a repeat. I have nothing against conspiracy theories per se, including false-flag theories. But they have to meet certain criteria of plausibility before I'll buy into them. I don't just accept every one that comes down the pike. And as I said, I'm something of a meta-conspiracy theorist, in that I believe many if not most conspiracy theories are based on disinformation put out by people who are trying to hide something the conspiracy nuts haven't thought of looking for. In the case of 9/11, I think there was considerably more foreknowledge of the attacks than we've been led to believe. I think they were pretty much allowed to happen, and I think *that* is what the disinformation about missiles and controlled demolition and so on is intended to distract from. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://standraise.corp.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://standraise.corp.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
