[WARNING: this list contains images that may offend] This is a list of secret projects that have since been found to be true in light of released (either officially, or unofficially) documents. Some have long been the source of conspiracy theories while others have been accepted by the mainstream as real. In no particular order:
Sir Winston Churchill, Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, planned to execute Adolf Hitler in the electric chair if the Nazi leader fell into Allied hands.
Declassified documents reveal that Churchill was opposed to Allied plans for war crimes trials and wanted summarily to execute leading Nazi figures including Hitler who he regarded as “the mainspring of evil” and a “gangster”, and was also content to see Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi starve to death during a hunger strike in 1943.
They also show that he was willing, against the advice of his Cabinet colleagues, to “wipe out” defenceless German villages in retaliation for Nazi atrocities in Czechoslovakia.
Churchill’s choice of the electric chair was despite the fact that it was never used in Britain before the final abolition of the death penalty in 1965. source.
According to secret and long-hidden documents, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government – a fake terrorist attack on citizens.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20, 1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America’s virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba. PDF file showing the original documents.
US documents declassified in the 1970′s show that General Giovanni de Lorenzo, the chief of Sifar (Italian Military Intelligence), joined the US in the 1950′s in preparing a plan against a Communist takeover, but did not inform his own government. According to a document released by Mr Andreotti the CIA and Sifar sketched a plan in November 1956, codenamed Gladio, to form a force of 1000 men capable of guerilla warfare and espionage. A training base was set-up in Sardinia and 139 weapons and ammunition dumps were hidden in Northern Italy.
Gladio was controlled by NATO’s Clandestine Planning Committee; attached to Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe. It was appropriate that the documentaries should be made by the BBC, since Britain’s MI6 and SAS were key movers and trainers, along with the CIA, in the Gladio operation.
In 1990 the Italian secret army was exposed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to the Italian Senate, whereupon the press spoke of “The best kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II”.
“On the morning of August 2, 1980, a massive bomb exploded in the waiting room of the central train station in Bologna, killing 81 people and injuring 200 others. General Santorito, the chief of Italy’s military intelligence agency, SISMI testified in the wake of the bombing that it had been planned by the British-Swiss-American ‘Montecarlo Comite’ based in Monaco.”
Google has unfortunatley removed the first two episodes of a three part documentary on Operation Gladio. Part three is shown above.
The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). They were almost entirely civilians, the majority of them women and children. The massacre was conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Before being killed some of the victims were raped and sexually molested, beaten, tortured, or maimed. Some of the dead bodies were also mutilated.
Six months later, Tom Glen, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, wrote a letter to General Creighton Abrams, the new overall commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military) of routine and pervasive brutality against Vietnamese civilians. The letter was detailed and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers.
Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.” Powell’s handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as “whitewashing” the atrocities of My Lai. In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN’s Larry King, “I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored.” further info from the BBC in 1988.

Beginning in mid July 2003, according to federal court records, Bush administration officials, including Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Lewis Libby, discussed with various reporters the employment of a then-classified, covert, CIA officer, Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame).
On September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice asserting that Plame’s status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requested a federal investigation. Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The “CIA leak” grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, I. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005; Libby resigned hours after the indictment.

Convinced that German scientists could help America’s postwar efforts, President Harry Truman agreed in September 1946 to authorize “Project Paperclip,” a program to bring selected German scientists to work on America’s behalf during the “Cold War”.
The highest proflie of these scientist was Wernher Von Braun the man who masterminded the Moon shots, and a member of numerous Nazi organisations, he also held rank in the SS. His initial intelligence file described him as “a security risk”. The US operation saw von Braun and more than 700 others spirited out of Germany from under the noses of the US’s allies. Interesting side piece: do some snooping and find out what and who links Werner von Braun and L. Ron Hubbard.
The Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton might have been stripped of his firearms licence had prosecutors heeded police reports about his worrying behaviour towards children, according to secret files.
These include claims that police were tipped off that Hamilton was armed and en route to Dunblane Primary School, that he was a Freemason and received favours from Masons in the police allowing him to avoid prosecution, and that he was part of a paedophile ring that included members of the security forces. Lord Cullen on completing the public inquiry into the murders of 16 children and their teacher, ordered the documents in the case sealed for an extraordinary 100 years. Even the major media in Scotland thought this smelled funny. What was being hidden?
The report banned under the 100-year rule was com piled by Paul Hughes, then a detective sergeant with Central Scotland police, and concerns Thomas Hamilton’s activities at a summer camp in Loch Lomond in 1991, five years before the shootings. Selected extracts published during the Cullen inquiry revealed that it recommended Hamilton should be prosecuted for his activities at the summer camp and that he should have his gun licence revoked. The report, however, was ignored.
In October 2004, former conservative party chairman Lord Tebbit added his voice to the growing outrage at this decision, and in October 2005 half of the files were opened. Press reports suggested that the papers showed Hamilton be a paranoid obsessive, much given to writing letters of complaint to all and sundry; a paedophile ring has not been found.
On June the 8th 1967, during the six day war, Israel deliberately attacked the intelligence collection ship USS Liberty, in full awareness it was a U.S. Navy ship, and did its best to sink it and leave no survivors. The attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173.
Scores of intelligence analysts and senior officials have known this for years. That virtually all of them have kept a 40-year frightened silence is testament to the widespread fear of touching this live wire. According to NSA documents – classified top secret – some senior officials in Washington wanted above all, to protect Israel from embarrassment.
this video gives a brief overview of the incident along with a few others of note. Supporting Documents.
Classified documents obtained by a group of former workers at Thule, an Arctic air and radar base built by the United States in 1951-52, suggest that one of four hydrogen bombs on a B-52 bomber that crashed there in 1968 was never found, the daily Jyllands-Posten said “Detective work by a group of former Thule workers indicates that an unexploded nuclear bomb probably still lies on the seabed off Thule”, the mass-circulation daily said.
The crash, on January 21, 1968 led to a crisis in relations between the United States and NATO ally Denmark, which is responsible for Greenland’s foreign, security and defense policy and at the time prohibited nuclear weapons on its territory, including Greenland. Denmark was never informed about the lost bomb, which has serial number 78252, the paper said.
A U.S. state department document dated August 31, 1968 said all weapons onboard the crashed aircraft had been accounted for but did not spell out whether they had been recovered. The United States assured the Danish government in spring 1968 that clean-up work after the B-52 crash had been completed and gave up searching for the lost bomb in August that year.
Home to a ballistic missile early-warning radar station, Thule sits at the midpoint of a chain of similar sites between Alaska and the British Isles — a line along which the United States may build a shield against missiles from what it calls states of concern such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya.
In October 2007 the vatican published secret documents about the trial of the Knights Templar, including a parchment – long ignored because of a vague catalog entry in 1628 – showing that Pope Clement V initially absolved the medieval order of heresy. The Vatican work reproduces the entire documentation of the papal hearings convened after King Philip IV of France arrested and tortured Templar leaders in 1307 on charges of heresy and immorality.
According to the Vatican archives website, the parchment shows that Clement initially absolved the Templar leaders of heresy, though he did find them guilty of immorality, and that he planned to reform the order. However, pressured by King Philip (who threatened schism), Clement later reversed his decision and suppressed the order in 1312. Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was burned at the stake in 1314 along with his aides.
Contributor: Tamala


























*mad = made (typo)
Note that I wouldn’t support Sharia as the sole legal system, or any system based in religion as the sole system(like the UKs and the USAs for example)- but I think it should be there as an alternative for those who wish it.
Just trying a new nickname- can’t see any of my posts
I’m trying to reply to you kiwiboi it just won’t let me
“I made a comment before 122- but can’t seem to see it? Aw well- here’s the gist-
kiwiboi- that’s tabloid myth. Lashings and stonings are from a different time or rarely carried out by Fundamentalists. That’s not Sharia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia“
Hobolad;
The UK justice system is based on English common law. Not any particular religion. Sorry – Wrong. Canada’s legal system is the same. Judges making decisions based on legal precedent and common sense.
Are you maybe confusing tribal/community policing with Sharia law? We have that here in Canada; in some of our native communities offenders can go before a tribunal where punishment is meted out within the community instead of the courts. Some of our youth offenders (1st time, non-violent) are offered a similar program through The Elizabeth Fry Society; victims (property crime) have a large say in the punishment. Generally it involves community service/education (projects on drug abuse, cost of shop-lifting etc)restitution and shame as they must meet with the victims. I know it has had some success in Native Communities, with Youth I’m not so sure, but it does free-up the courts and it is way less expensive (many of the participants are volunteers).
My posts aren’t showing up, I’ve made a few- they just ain’t appearing
Anyway, can’t be bother retyping. Sharia law- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Lashings/stonings/behandings (whatever you call it
) a thing of the past (back in the days when we hung, draw and quartered people…) or by extremists. We only think it representative of Sharia because we have this whole “If it’s Muslim- it’s bad!” zeitgeist going on.
Our legal systems of course have their basis in religion. Divorce/Adultery etc. Marriage even. There are a few et ceteras but I don’t want to make too large a post only to find it not appearing
Hobolad; I don’t give a ***** what wikipedia says, Kiwiboi is correct, a woman was lashed this year for being a victim of rape. Wrong again.
Ooh, that one appeared! Yay!
Anyway- while it’s working- Sharia law isn’t official. It’s an option. It’s very cheap. It deals with day to day things, like disputes with neighbours and such, rather than murders and the like. It’s not enforced, it’s merely for people to have disputes settled by an independant, and if people aren’t happy they can choose to go through the legal system, with all the expense and time and such that costs.
Mom424- Well, I’m afraid that’s the tabloid labelling extremist acts as Sharia when it’s not.
Hobolad;
But it was a Sharia council who decided the punishment. How do you differentiate the good sharia from the bad? Only when you agree with the punishment? Un uh, can’t have it both ways. And what is the recourse? Is there an appeal process in say Afghanistan?
Mom424- That’s not Sharia law though, that’s the laws of that country represented by Sharia. Sharia law implemented in whatever country still has to follow the laws of that country.
Hobolad; Here is a quote taken from the article you provided. You should have read the whole thing.
“Many, including the European Court of Human Rights, consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel. Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime.[68] In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crimes of adultery and homo*****uality, amputations for the crime of theft, and flogging for fornication or public intoxication”
Source; wikipedia
Mom424- And? Law in Islamic countries =/= Sharia law. People just confuse the two often, because admittedly where there’s one there’s usually the other. Sharia isn’t the law, it’s just a way of implementing whatever the law is.
Sharia law in, say, Britain, as the Archbishop guy suggested (Was it an Archbishop? Can’t remember) would merely be a cheap way to settle small disputes that isn’t legally binding. It’s the ultimate Post-Modern legal system.
Hobolad, small claims court??
Amina Lawal, 30, has been sentenced to death by stoning – a fate which would involve being buried up to her neck in sand and have rocks thrown at her head. However, the Islamic court has ruled that the penalty cannot be carried out until Lawal has finished breastfeeding her baby daughter, Wasila, which the judge said would not be before January 2004
full article here … http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/qanda.islam
I wonder how John Glenn feels about Operation Northwoods.
Although it is not “declassified” yet, 9/11 was definitely operated by the US Government. There is so much proof that that is the case…it’s quite sickening. For any of you who have not seen the “911 Loose Change (full version) video on youtube.com I suggest to take an 80 minutes of your time and watch it…Operation Northwoods pretty much sums it up…
Hobolad-
some links will kick a comment into moderation. ..no matter how many times you post the same link. if a comment containing a link doesn’t show, chances are its in moderation. please do not keep re entering the same comment and/or link. just enter a new comment w/ the link as text not code. sorry but i don’t have any way of knowing which links will work and which won’t. cuz some do. some don’t. if yours doesn’t…the first time…it won’t no matter how many times you enter it. so if you have any doubts if a link will post or not…just use the text not the code. and no, i’m not a coder …so for more technical information about posting links in comments…ask J.
So what’s the deal with von Braun and L. Ron Hubbard? How are they connected? My Google skills aren’t that good.
Revolver see post no 60 and follow the link, for some extra info see here http://www.reason.com/news/show/32190.html
Tamala- That’s not Sharia, that’s just the law as represented by Sharia. It’s like… the jury system in the USA can have people killed. In the UK it can’t. That’s not the jury system, that’s the laws of that country.
Cyn- Sorry! I thought something had gone wrong and that’s why the posts weren’t showing
Thanks for the info.
Thanks, Tamala. Interesting read. BTW, 9/11? Inside job. People, start with Loose Change then do your own research. Peace.
Hobolad;
You are mistaken. You are trying to separate the mechanism from the religion. You can’t do that. Sharia law enforces Islamic law. There are a few countries that allow clerics to rule on some things but not others – this is not the norm. Sharia law as practiced is barbaric almost uniformly.
By the way your goofy statement about UK law being based on Christianity is crap. UK common-law actually borrowed/stole/adapted their legal system from Sharia law. You should read some of the history of British jurisprudence.
Re-read my post #124. That is what you want – NOT sharia law.
I hate to sound jingoistic here, but this is very simple…
There is absolutely no earthly reason why sharia should be enacted in ANY Western country… or for that matter any country in the world, but that’s another argument.
The West has an overall tradition of law based on tenets that are WESTERN in nature. It should stay that way.
IF people of another persuasion want their OWN form of rule of law, then let them STAY or return to those countries where sharia (or what have you) prevails. It’s as simple as that.
If you choose to live in a western nation, then you should be prepared to accept western culture as your own, with all the good AND bad that entails. Otherwise, why the hell come in the first place?
And Hobolad… you need to do some serious re-reading and deeper research before making these comments… Mom and the others have it right, and you, I’m sorry to say, have it wrong. You’re off-base and deeply naive about sharia.
jenna_bug: please don’t take the word of a documentary film maker and then accuse our government of high treason, murder and down right bastardness. check your facts. there is tons of information out there debunking “loose change”.
jenna_bug; To expand upon DiscHuker’s statement – go read Popular Mechanics – they debunk loose change step by step, each and every point. Loose change is an apt name; they play quick and loose with physics, thermodynamics, and common-sense.
Seriously? People are still watching Loose Change? I thought that was a fad, along with that godawful Zeitgeist movie. *sigh* I hate these kinds of movies specifically for this reason. Uninformed/undereducated people watch this drivel and take it at face value. These types of films do nothing except sow divisiveness and ignorance. I think the most personally annoying thing about them is how smart the people who believe this crap think they are. They always act like they have this secret inside information that nobody knows, that somehow they, of all people, are privy to some vast conspiracy that the “average” person is completely and willfully ignorant of. And of course, they like to cap their statements with “do your own research and decide for yourselves!” which I think is particularly laughable, since most of them haven’t bothered to do the research themselves. (Unless you count watching one movie hellbent on twisting the facts to support its convoluted logic and reach preordained conclusions.)
Again, I’m not the one who’s mistaken about Sharia law. It’s not what people think it is. If someone makes a list about forms of law, I’ll argue the point.
#146 Slicky,
I dont think there’s anything wrong with people making movies like Loose Change. If anyone is naive enough to take it at face value its their fault.
but people should not be discouraged from making such movies just because it challenges a commonly held belief. if a “loose change” type movie was made about operation northwoods (albeit with better evidence) it would probably have met a similar reaction as it sounds like such an impossibility.
i for one thought some of the claims made in loose change were laughable (especially the part about specific placing of bombs in the towers to ease its collapse) but there was just one thing that was interesting. the part about passengers taking their full names when calling loved ones. I dont remember whether it was just one person or more but that was probably the most odd occurence because it generally does not happen.
however that one point was obviously not enough to make me wonder if any of the other junk in the movie was true. certainly a treat for conspiracy theorists though.
#135 Jenna_Bug
If you are going to watch Loose Change, have this website up as well while you are watching it.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
It’s a guide to people who hear things that sound smart and automatically think it’s true. The producers of Loose Change forgot to do some research…
Hobolad; Coward.
How are we mistaken? Sharia law enforces and uses punishments written how many years ago? You are naive to believe that all Sharia law deals with is property disputes. You seem to think that it is all rosy, peachy-keen. Sounds good, group of community leaders getting together to find a fair and common-sense solution to community problems. You neglect to consider what the Quran considers community problems and the proscribed punishments for same.
Again – You cannot separate the process from the Religion.
I’m getting *****ed off – read post 124.
Either concede defeat or defend yourself.
losty(yomarbles):
I have no problem with movies that challenge the status quo. I have a problem with movies that attempt to challenge the status quo based on false and misleading information, selective research, failing to provide proper context, and do so in a way that appears to the layman that they are factual. Specifically because I then have to put up with people like some on these forums who assert that this crap is true with the same arrogance and simultaneously ignorance of the movie.
No people should not be discouraged from making movies that challenge popularly held beliefs. But people should be discouraged from making movies like Loose Change that challenge popularly held beliefs by taking a foregone conclusion and intentionally twisting the facts to support their erroneous assumptions.
And for god’s sakes, don’t call me Slicky. Slick, Willy, or SlickWilly will be just fine, thanks.
I have done research and yes there are things that are debunked, however, you mean to say that you can read this list of things that have been declassified, things that people had no idea about and you don’t believe there is just a chance that 9/11 was just a scheme built by our own government? I’m not saying I believe everything the video depicts, I’m not that stupid, but it just makes too much sense that this really could have happened. I love living in America and having all the opportunities I have, but I believe there are MANY MANY secrets kept from us…regardless, 9/11 was a terrible day, innocent people died..it was something that should have never happened.
Slick, Willy, SlickWilly (Choose the name you love the most)
Firstly the “y” was a typo. I didnt know people take such offence at having their internet alias spelt wrong. My Bad. Have to be extra careful from now on.
regarding the movie itself, you will find it extremely difficult to ever come up with a movie like Loose Change without first having a generalised idea of the conclusion you want to get to. that is obviously a wrong way to start
Most of the time such movies come up with rubbish evidence using as you said selectuve research and incorrect context. Even so, if even 1% of these movies come up with the right conclusion from the start, it is much easier to prove your case without having to use any inappropriate techniques.
I always wonder why people who are so sure of themselves, even when rightly so, cannot let go of other people’s ignorance. Most sane people would look at Loose Change for what it is – an extremely biased movie which cannot be taken at face value. but the few that believe every single point are hardly going to change their view based on something they read on an internet forum.
Yes, they are ignorant and have a twisted view of the world but why does it get on your nerve. I tend to enjoy such ignorance.
jenna_bug: just because there have been other conspiracies does not mean that big brother is hiding behind every evil that happens.
for all of the 9-11 conspiracy people…it seems that the main point of all of this is to point out “interesting” or “weird” facts or “discrepancies”. not one person has offered a conclusion, a motivation (other than saying there is money involved) or the supposed results of publicly killing 1000′s of your citizens.
whoops, forgot to add the final point…
give me a detailed reason why the government, or whomever you suppose, did what you suggest they did.
lost: Why does my letting ignorance bother me bother you? I know you don’t care one way or the other, but why bring it up at all then? I certainly am not trying to dissuade anyone from believing in a 9/11 conspiracy, as I have tangled quite often with conspiracy theorists in the past (much more so than you probably realize) and know firsthand how strong their convictions are. I’m simply trying to expose to these people how silly they seem to the rest of us, and how they tend to isolate and ostracize themselves from the rest of society, perhaps unintentionally. That’s another big reason why conspiracy theories gain so much weight among a certain type of people: the only ones they find don’t ridicule them for their beliefs are like-minded conspiracy theorists. It’s a self-reinforcing behavior, and one of the reasons we see movies like Loose Change, or people like David Icke, or the hundreds of thousands of conspiracy-themed websites.
All I’m saying is that while you may enjoy watching the individuals in the general population descend into ignorance, I don’t see it that way. I see what may have been an intelligent, sophisticated population degenerate into superstition, paranoia, and arrogance.
And again, please be sure to spell my name correctly. I find it incredibly annoying, it throws off my groove, and my day, and subsequently my week, month, and thus, my year have been ruined. After that comes a slippery slope of mental degeneration and before you know it, my whole life has been reduced to anxious, depressive tatters. Don’t ruin my life, lost. Spell my screenname right. Thank you.
Jenna_bug: Yes, there is a chance that our government orchestrated and carried out one of the deadliest and most prolific terrorist attacks in history on it’s own people in order to garner support for a war in the middle east. (Not that…you know, other *real* terrorist attacks could have also been cited.) There is also a chance that tomorrow, monkeys will fly out of my butt and start killing people with lightning guns. It’s a very, very small chance, most likely will not happen, and science can prove how it is extremely unlikely that the signs associated with monkeys flying out of my butt are in actuallity the signs of severe constipation, or how difficult it would be for said monkeys to obtain lightning guns, which have yet to be invented. But dammnit, there is still a chance, and if that chance is enough to make you believe that tomorrow monkeys will fly out of my butt and start killing people with lightning guns, then stock up on bananas, because such peace offerings are the only thing standing between you and extra-crispy you.
Jenna_Bug, this is what you first said “9/11 was definitely operated by the US Government”. Based on what? Because you believe it makes sense that the government would do this? How does it make any sense? They would not need to take down two buildings, crash into the Pentagon, and crash another plane into a field in order to gain support for a war. They could stage one terrorist attack on a bus in the United States and kill 12 people and gain enough support for a war.
Slick.
If I had any idea that my typo would have such consequences, I would had proof read it 4-5 times. I would never want the guilt of having “ruined” your life hanging over me.
you are right that i dont care one way or the other. and no your defence does not bother me at all. i do not agree with you on the self-reinforcing point though. i feel that deep down these people do know the stupidity of their beliefs and at times what they are looking for is precisely the argument put forward by rational human beings. but hey thats what i think. i believe im right and im quite certain that you dont think you’re wrong so no point trading blows on that one.
i can almost picture someone saying the exact thing that you said to Jenna_bug regarding Operation Northwood (obviously when it was still classified).
Wow… First off, this was a great list! I agree with the sentiments that this is one of the better lists in a while! So kudos to you, Tamala, good job!
But about all the 9/11 talk, and thinking we did it to ourselves? Just way too creepy. I was leaning toward that way of thinking for a short while after I read some websites and stuff, but have since ruled it out, at least in my own mind. I mean, I’m sure part of it happening was our fault, but rather on a part of being complacent, not because we were involved. It was more of an indirect assistance, by not trying to stop them. . . Am I making sense? I hope so.
Re: Randall #142 – I agree with you wholeheartedly. Well said.
Mom424: Coward xD
I’m sorry, but I’m just not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. If it’s a subject you actually want to know more about, there’s plenty of stuff on google. If you want to try and start an argument over the internet over something you can easily just learn for yourself, then I’m afraid it’s impossible to be anything other than a loser of that argument.
You’re taking specific instances in specific countries and acting as if it’s representative, when it isn’t. Sharia as implemented in Britain, as suggested by the Archbishop chap, would be all the things I’m saying- because Sharia law is no strict code, it varies between societies.
And I don’t know what you want me to reply to in 124? The bit about UK law? UK is quite obviously based heavily on Christianity/Church of England. All law is based in religion, even today. Hell, we even have CoE bishops in the House of Lords- no other religions are represented- that’s why we have things like compulsary RE.
lost: Somehow I feel the concept of ass-dwelling, winged primates with advanced electrical weapons would be lost on the people of the early 1960′s. I could be wrong. That being said, I do find the existence of the Northwood documents disturbing, but also find it interesting that the plan was never carried out, and would be interested to know the reasons for that. (Other than the obvious; I doubt human rights or morality matter much to the people who drafted those documents.)
The most I’m willing to believe about supposed US-gov’t involvement in 9/11 was the incredible failure to act on imminent information and not responding to the situation faster. (Which I’m willing to believe could have been intentional, but in lieu of anything but circumstantial evidence I will reserve my judgement.) However, it’s been going on 7 years since the attacks, and the pre-9/11 U.S. is becoming a distant memory. It’s hard to understand how such a thing could happen as they said it did *now*, but very easy to imagine how it could’ve happened *then*. Security was lax and gov’t coordination was (and is still) woefully inept.
Look at is this way: It’s hard enough for the gov’t to coordinate and execute a plan to fix the nation’s crumbling bridges, crumbling economy, or crumbling foreign policy. It’s hard enough for politicians to hide their various sordid affairs and blatant corruptions from the American public. I can’t in good faith accept the fact that somehow the gov’t managed to pull their ***** together long enough to plan and successfully pull off one of the most massive terrorist attacks in history against their own nation, and indeed, even themselves, without the public finding out about it (other than through a few crackpots’ erroneous assertions). And if, somehow, they *did* orchestrate it…why did they not make better plans for what was supposed to happen afterwards? Why did the government rush off to war so rashly and end up killing the economy and our relationship with otherwise friendly nations? What was the point? Oil? If it were oil, why is China absolutely *slaughtering* us in the oil industry right now? No, I just can’t accept that.
South Park said it best:
“Who’s responsible for 9/11?”
“What do you mean? A bunch of *****ed off Muslims.”
Sharia as implemented in Britain, as suggested by the Archbishop chap, would be all the things I’m saying
Hobolad – the Archbishop of Canterbury is, IMHO, a muesli-eating, sandal-wearing, long-haired, long-bearded, tree-hugging, ultra-liberal loon. And those are the more charitable attributes I can think of.
This is the fool who apologised to those nations that were converted to Christianity by British explorers/missionaries, apologised to British descendants of those who were slaves generations ago etc. etc.
Give this ‘tard a reason to apologise or appease and he’ll be there in his hair shirt and on his knees.
And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, even British Muslims thought he was talking out of his arse about sharia law; in fact, many of them rejected his call for sharia to be legimitised in Britain. Note, too, his own church made him backtrack on most of the crap he was spouting.
And, Hobo, you made the following comment about sharia law earlier :
It’s Judge Judy, except not even official, just an impartial person who tries to make both parties in small claims happy, and if they’re not they can go through the courts if they want
Ignoring the Judge Judy bit…there is absolutely nothing – repeat, nothing – that stands in the way of citizens resolving disputes in this manner in the UK (and most anywhere else) today. You don’t need sharia law for this.
So what difference would sharia make if that is the benefit it brings.
Moreover, sharia law possesses brutal, oppressive and draconian “remedies”. It should be banned universally. But, of course, it won’t be, so long as Islamic extremists continue to abuse their own societies.
Finally, you say you don’t want to argue over this on the internet. Well, it was a topic you, yourself, raised.
Kiwiboi:
I find the Archbishop to be a genuine chap. None of those things you listed are really insults- the people in question are still being affected by the injustices of the past. It’s easy enough to say forgive and forget when you’re one who either isn’t affected or has benefited.
There is nothing to stop people starting something similar to Sharia law, correct. But there’s nothing in place. So why not implement it, or at least something similar? It doesn’t hurt a soul.
And Sharia law =/= Extremist examples. No one’s condoning Extremism in certain factions or in certain countries.
And I didn’t raise it, I was replying to comment 112. And I don’t want to argue, I want to discuss. The second it turns into two sides arguing solely to try and win, then there’s no use in continuing that argument.
I’ll put my nose in on the 11/9 stuff, while I’m here
What do people think of the theory that the attack happened pretty much as the official report said, but with Bin Laden still under orders from the USA? I mean, he at least used to be our Best Friend Forever when he was blowing people up for us, and his family are personal friends of the Bushes etc.
Not saying that I believe it, it just seems that when people think of the conspiracy theories to discredit, they just think of the most wild and easy to pick apart ones y’know? This one seems quite plausible. There’s no doubt that the government would be willing to commit atrocities, there’s no doubt that the people who had the opportunity to cause this to happen have benefited from it, there’s no doubt lies were told along the way at least to some degree (Like in the UK Tony Blair made up out of thin air that Hussein could WMD us at 45 mins notice after his experts reported no evidence of WMDs whatsoever, etc.)
And I didn’t raise it, I was replying to comment 112
Hobo – actually, I was referring to your comment below :
Learn what Sharia is, it’s not cutting off hands and things- it’s the equivalent of a small claims court.
But, it is of no consequence.
I agree with you, though; it is pointless banging our heads together. Given that sharia law is responsible for outrageous acts of retribution, brutality and oppression, I can see absolutely no redeeming features to offset this. There is also the direct religious linkage which – despite what you say – is a universe removed from mainstream Western jurisdictions and legal frameworks.
I also accept that you hold a different view, which is fair enough; my words aren’t going to change this (ditto on the Archbishop / apologetics etc.)
I don’t want to argue, I want to discuss
Sorry, my friend, this is the interweb; I don’t need to tell you that this is being a little idealistic.
But, I will say, that at least it is possible to have a “discussion” with you that doesn’t immediately evolve into a food-fight – which is refreshing
We’ll have to agree to disagree :cheers: Maybe it is idealistic, but if there’s gonna be a place where discussions are possible, it’s this site and this community. A toast to Listverse!
To me, somebody who doesn’t believe it was Muslim goons who masterminded and carried out the 9/11 attacks is equivelant to somebody who believed Hitler was a good man during WW2.
You’re blind and duped by Islamic Fascists. End of story.
As for 9/11 being something that could have been prevented, I totally agree. Bin Laden had been threatening to attack the U.S. since 1997 and should have immediately been found.
Hobolad: What would be the point of letting Bin Laden commit the atrocities on 9/11? Also, do you really think that the people in the U.S. government is full of such terrible people that would let something like that happen?
One reason, or excuse, that the American Government keeps secrets is that the news media is a free agency, and they report on anything they get their hands on. The U.S. government doesn’t want the [insert latest enemy here] to find out plans ahead of time by reading a U.S. newspaper or news website.
Mike: I fully believe the government is full of such terrible people
With Northwoods it was only Kennedy (so it hints at in Wikipedia, not certain though) that stopped it- all the staff chaps signed for it to go ahead. Do we really believe Bush is moral enough to do that? Or, to put it another way, do we really believe that even if he was, that he has enough power in his own government to do that?
Hobolad, listen to yourself. Your only mention for a source for information (on sharia law) is GOOGLE. Yet you shamelessly pretend some superior knowledge of the subject.
The internet is NOT a proper source for valid knowledge.
You’re wrong on sharia also in part because you’re wrong on the law of Britain (and by extension the US). The law codes and legal traditions of the West HAVE been *partly* influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition (and in fact more by the Jewish law traditions than Christian ones–the true root there is Hebraic law) BUT they have also been influenced–and just as much–by other and older legal traditions, going back to Babylon. The major influence was in fact classical Rome, whose legal traditions were only *partly* related to their religious traditions–the Romans being eminently practical people. In the long meantime since, our western legal traditions have evolved–NOT on a straight line course from these ancient (and yes, often religious roots) but on a *far* more meandering line which has led its way through *secular* society and tradition–again, influenced chiefly by Graeco-Roman traditions, where religion played a small, if even noticeable role. This tradition continued through to today.
Tell me WHY you think sharia is such a hot idea for Britain, or anywhere else for that matter? Why should an immigrant people have their OWN legal system within the traditional background of a western nation, separate from it and unbeholding to it? Why? This is exactly the kind of thing that is antithetical to civilization. Our traditions in the west amount to who and what we are. If, as you say, sharia is nothing more than small claims court (ludicrous, but it’s what you keep maintaining) then WHY does any immigrant living in a western nation NEED it? What’s wrong with the small claims system in the UK or the US, that muslim people can’t operate within it? OUR tradition has become the separation of church and state, and church and law. If they feel some need to reintroduce the two, then why do they choose to live in Britain?
No. This is pandering to a minority who believes religion must play a central role in ALL aspects of life. This, however, is not what the west has EVER been about–going back to our very beginnings. It’s not for us to change to suit them—they can rather stay in a part of the world where they have the miasma they desire, with their lives ruled by religious creed–or they can conform to western ideals and traditions, if they choose to live in western nations.
For us to compromise on this VERY BASIC principle behind our western, democratic tradition is absurd, and a slippery slope to throwing those principles out the door.
And knock it off with this pretending that you know better than anyone here about sharia law. You don’t. Some research on the internet didn’t make you an expert.
Hobolad: What would be the point of letting Bin Laden commit the atrocities on 9/11?
.
Umm… similar reason as to why Operation Northwood was planned ?
.
And I thought everyone read all points in the list …
9/11 would have been prevented if Clinton would have taken the Sudanese offer of Osama Bin Laden on a platter, but he said no thanks.
Furthermore, what possible motive could ISrael have had to attack a US ship?
False flag operation ?
Example: blame it on Arabs — and see USA attack arabs (read: their enemies) and have USA give them even more “aid”.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Has anyone read about the DC madam who recently committed “suicide”?
Conviently before she was scheduled to testify and expose her clients?
Shady *****, man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7378654.stm
Randall- I won’t be arguing because it’s something people can easily find out for themselves through, for example, google. You ask me why it should be introduced- I ask, why not? It’s cheaper for all parties involved and it’s not law as such, it’s just guidelines. It’s about settling it for both parties (not including extreme examples of course, which aren’t in line at all with modern Sharia law) and it’s not legally binding, so if people aren’t satisfied they can go through normal more expensive courts if they want. It would affect no one who didn’t want to be affected by it (well, except the taxpayer of course- who’d have to pay less than now, where small incidents go through the courts at relatively great expense.)
If the archbishop had suggested something exactly the same but with a Western sounding name it would be heralded, but as it is he made the mistake of thinking people might give something they know nothing of but think they do a chance.
Also- calm down! I don’t pretend I know it all. But knowing something is better than wading in knowing nothing more than assumptions.
Neoludd on the same kind of subject, what happened to the youngsters involved here is truely shocking
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=866739408240639313&q=conspiracy+of+silence&ei=KFEbSNu-F4LmiQLNmvDEAQ
..the quality isnt great but the story is awesome
I can’t help but think that all the conspiracy theorists who think the 9/11 tragedy was rigged by the US government are pinching their ***** and laughing with glee while reading about Operation Northwoods.
And you have to admit; it makes you wonder just a little bit, doesn’t it? If the government could even think about carrying something like that out, then how corrupt are they?
Hobolad:
You keep repeating this mantra that you “won’t argue because it’s something people can easily find out for themselves” (on the internet). This continually makes the assumption, on YOUR part, that you know better than other people–which is illogical and silly–and moreover that YOU know more because you “googled” it. Come off it, Hobolad… as Mom said, concede defeat already. Put up or shut up.
Where do you get off assuming that others on this site know less than you, and they are merely “wading in knowing nothing more than assumptions”? What an offensively close-minded and self-superior attitude to take.
You dismiss the horrors of sharia law as mere individual aberrations, when in fact they are ALL TOO common and represent the basic way of conducing business in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many other fundamentalist Islamic regimes. And the atrocities are NUMEROUS, not little specks here and there blighting an otherwise sane system. Your response to this is to try to get us to believe that there’s a warm and fuzzy version of sharia; but this is naive and disingenuous of you in the extreme, and no one will listen to you, I guarantee, as long as you continue to pooh-pooh the great number of evils that have been wrought upon women (as just one for instance) in the name of that law system.
MOREOVER you offer not ONE decent or logical reason why any western country SHOULD allow sharia law—your only point is to offer that it’s “cheaper.” I’ll take a cheap shot here and point out that it’s “cheaper” to just drag suspects of crimes out into the street and shoot them, also, rather than give them a fair trial… but we don’t take all expediencies with justice on account of cost, thank god. At any rate, you keep harping on the “small claims court” nature of sharia law as its prime advantage–well I don’t know about Britain in this regard, but in the US small claims court is largely free. Whatever fees may apply are nowhere near the costs of higher civil and criminal courts. Lawyers are rarely engaged. So what “cost” are we trying to save here?
And then you accuse all of us of thinly disguised racism with the remark about the archbishop…..oh, if only he’d called it something “western,” we’d all be behind it.
No, Hobolad, not me. Religion has NO PLACE in the legal system of our secular traditions. I don’t care if it’s Christianity, Islam, or Druidism. Our law system is based on a long tradition of secular values about justice. There is no earthly reason to go and introduce (and legitimize) a parallel religious law in our western societies. It is, as I said, antithetical to our notion of western civilization. It wouldn’t be right if a bunch of fundamentalist Christians wanted to create their OWN legal system on these grounds, and it isn’t right for muslims to do that either. If they want it, they can stay pat in their home countries or go back to them.
I have no idea why you’re so behind this ridiculous and dangerous idea; but I do note that we live in times when more and more people seem to lose sight of what should be the obvious.
Randall: First and second paragraph:What I mean to say is- I’m not here to win or “concede defeat”- that’s just childish. If it’s something you actually want to know about, it’s easy enough to research- Google can explain it better than me. If you just want to win an argument, congrats! You’ve won! Hope you feel better! But you’re still wrong.
Is it close minded to dislike false assumptions? Is it close minded to look into something before making one’s mind up either way rather than relying on the tabloids and the zeitgeist?
Third paragraph- Yes, fundamentalist regimes. Not in non-fundamentalist regimes, which aren’t as often subjects of films or in newspapers but they’re there. Is the UK a fundamentalist regime? Why should their abuse of an otherwise efficient system affect our use of it?
Fourth paragraph- You think small claims courts don’t cost a thing? If you’re not paying for lawyers and fees then you’re paying with your taxes. Sharia law doesn’t need a trial- it’s not that kind of legal system. It’s two parties who argue their case to an impartial community leader who then finds a common ground, a judgement that’ll hopefully please both. This is only accepted if both parties agree, if not they can choose to go through the courts. How barbaric!
It’s not a system to take the place of the current legal system, it’s an additional option for small disputes better settled within the community.
Fifth paragraph- Come on, Islamaphobia is raging (wrongfully). Ignoring it won’t help a thing.
Sixth paragraph- I don’t believe it should, but if you think religion doesn’t come into western law, I’m afraid it’s my turn to call you naive.
The “first paragraph” stuff isn’t in reference to my own paragraphs- my replies to Randall’s paragraphs
Just in case anyone didn’t get that…