Between the Neo-Cons , the False Flags and the Dog wagging

[malaise]

and the various agencies, I believe this lonely confused Nigerian Preppie was well set up. Word is that he didn't even have all the chemicals necessary for an explosion.

Notice how the preemptive war spinmeisters were out early on Sunday morning. Now they're screaming that Obama's response is not belligerent enough.

[Turborama]

1. "Set up" by who?

And what exactly do you mean by "False Flags and the Dog wagging"?

[CJCRANE]

2. Religious fundamentalism

is the perfect method of mind control too. Very easy to brainwash. Just tell them they're doing it for their God.

[el_bryanto]

3. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

And the sudden appearance of conservative bashers of obama isn't evidence - those people are always around and the Sunday morning shows have them on speed dial.

Bryant

[malaise]

4. Who has evidence

Certainly not the hacks spreading all sorts of rumors.

[Don Caballero]

5. Conspiracy Theory Nutbaggery

No evidence of anything. Using the term "false flag" is the epitome of being crazy.

[Turborama]

7. Seeing the term "false flag" in a title always raises a "red flag" n/t

[Echo In Light]

12. Belligerent A-holes ridiculing others as "crazy" b/c they don't trust govt...

.... always sends up a 'red flag' w/me

[Turborama]

18. I didn't say anyone is "crazy" for not trusting the government

Now your just making shit up, too. Adding personal insults to arguments always fails and smacks of desperation.

[Echo In Light]

19. Read "Don"

[leftstreet]

8. Oh. You're still here n/t

[Hannah Bell]

36. lol. yeah, that kind of stuff never happens.

[Echo In Light]

6. Agreed, or at least anyone w/the wherewithal to understand the phony war would question the validity

Bear in mind though that if you personally can't answer every question the naysayers have as to who/what/where/when/why you'll of course be promptly and dutifully attacked and ridiculed. The idea being, if a random poster at this forum doesn't know everything, than that fact alone by default relegates any suspicion enough for crusading naysayers to disavow the notion entirely as 'proof' of it being inaccurate.

[Way2go]

10. It's what progressive, liberal Democrats do, isn't it? ISN'T it?

"Bear in mind though that if you personally can't answer every question the naysayers have as to who/what/where/when/why you'll of course be promptly and dutifully attacked and ridiculed. The idea being, if a random poster at this forum doesn't know everything, than that fact alone by default relegates any suspicion enough for crusading naysayers to disavow the notion entirely as 'proof' of it being inaccurate."

[Echo In Light]

13. No, liberals tend to know shit from shinola, as where those who hate those who distrust govt

... tend to be fuckin clueless all the way 'round

[Turborama]

15. Or

It could be justifiably seen as just random speculation without anything substantive to back it up.

[Echo In Light]

16. Except that there is a track record to either go by, or ignore/disavow in denial

[Turborama]

17. I was talking about this particular OP

Which is in fact just random speculation without anything substantive to back it up. That's what Faux news does and I don't buy it from them either.

[Echo In Light]

20. Oh yeah, quickly try to align this w/FOX! lol Quack

[Turborama]

22. Random speculation without facts is random speculation without facts

And is what the OP has in common with Faux. Whether you like it or not.

[Echo In Light]

24. Bullshit. That the OP is speculating doesn't mean it's "like FOX."

[Turborama]

26. Yes it does if they are speculating without facts to back it up

Not even one link or any specific examples.

[Echo In Light]

30. If there were "links," you'd simply dismiss the sources. Do you realize how many 'theories' begin w/

speculation, btw? ...likely many you take for granted every day w/o being cognizant of it. And no one but personality types like yourself would generally equate speculation w/FOX "news," which you don't do b/c it has any merit, but b/c you seek to malign those who espouse unfavorable (to you) views.

[Turborama]

32. How do you know I would dismiss them?

I genuinely want to see them and find out what they talking about, that's why I asked for them in post #1. Your speculation about my "personality type" shows just how good you are at making shit up, too.

[Echo In Light]

34. Call it a hunch

[Turborama]

35. Well, I hope you don't gamble

Because judging by that hunch you'd lose all your money.

[malaise]

27. But you don't mind buying the speculation from

RW hacks. I think for myself.

[Turborama]

31. No, I don't buy RW speculation either, as I said in post #17

Saying that you think for yourself that I buy RW speculation shows how shallow your thought processes are, nothing else.

[CJCRANE]

23. DU has a better track record than Fox.

Plus the Beckerheads tend to copy our LW conspiracy theories from the Bush era and recycle them with a RW spin. Plenty of our conspiracy theories turned out to be conspiracy facts.

[Turborama]

25. I'm not talking about DU, though

I'm referring to the OP.

[CJCRANE]

28. I'd call the OP "informed speculation"...

just like we had on DU about...

WMD (or lack of)
Abu Ghraib
Jessica Lynch
Pat Tillman
Jack Abramoff
Warrantless wiretapping
etc.
etc.

[Turborama]

33. "informed speculation" that doesn't show us how they were informed? n/t

[CJCRANE]

37. It's from hours and hours every day

for 8 years of following the war on terror closely. You get a feel for how these stories play out, how the information released is staggered, what information makes it to the MSM headlines and what information appears years later in obscure govt reports.

Long-time DUers will know what I'm talking about.

[Turborama]

38. Because some members of DU have been following the "war on terror" closely for 8 years

Doesn't give the OP any excuse for throwing around very vague speculation without anything to back it up.

I've been following geopolitics for 22 years (since I was 18) and like to have something I can get my teeth into instead of swallowing vapid conclusions which don't define what is actually being said.

[CJCRANE]

39. It all boils down to

whether you see mistakes during the Bush era as "incompetence" or deliberate negligence. If the former then we could debate examples and evidence back and forth forever without agreement.

Speculation on DU during the last 8 years about Abu Ghraib (and all the other examples I mentioned in a previous post) has generally tended towards calling it deliberate negligence or at least not believing the initial MSM or Bushco version of events.

[malaise]

29. +1

Thank you

[Way2go]

9. Agree. He's only a manipulated Patsy.

Think his handler(s) will ever be identified by their personal names? We can all easily deduce what agency they work for.

[grassfed]

11. neocon dream map - study and draw your own conclusions

BEFORE



AFTER


source http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/08/18295574.php

[That Is Quite Enough]

14. These days, it wouldn't really surprise me.

The Psy-Ops department of the imperial cabal is unleashing an unprecedented fury against the Obama administration. Setting up and helping to execute terrorist attacks wouldn't really be anything new or drastic to them.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Appears to be a "TEST" Run

checking for holes in our security

[MinM]

40. Passengers on Detroit Flight Witness Accomplice and Passenger Video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x418019