Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time.
I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?
That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
Correct. I can't imagine that a government would be so morally corrupt as to incite, finance and source weapons for Islamic extremists that they then unleash on their own citizens, and then make sure they they all get shot during the rescue to make sure they never talk.
I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
A more diluted version of this conspiracy theory is that there is a roughly constant supply of crazies who want to blow stuff up, that most of them are easy to catch, and that on occasion security agencies let one succeed so that they can get favorable-to-them legislation to happen.
No, they are super-human, and all of this is part of an intentional plot to subvert us in a way that won't cause us to rise up and behead the super-humans currently running the show...
I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.
It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc.
I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk':
That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison.
It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
Conspiracy theories are bullshit 99% of the time, but you must be an idiot to think it's difficult to stage such a thing. Naivety is not a very cute trait in adults (but probably not as dangerous as chemtrail-type stupidity).
Maybe not planned, but the idea that they were "tolerated" because they promoted the agenda for a reasonably low cost seems not too far fetched. grabs tinfoil
"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
"it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'"
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation.
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
Comments
Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time.
I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?
That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
Correct. I can't imagine that a government would be so morally corrupt as to incite, finance and source weapons for Islamic extremists that they then unleash on their own citizens, and then make sure they they all get shot during the rescue to make sure they never talk.
I can imagine that the security agencies make mistakes. I can also imagine that they don't always effectively manage and identify the correct intelligence. Whilst blanket surveillance provides you to monitor all the things, it just makes the haystack bigger. Good intelligence and reliable sources on the other hand (which require smart man-power), is costly and laborious. It helps you know in which bale in the haystack you should be taking a closer look at.
A more diluted version of this conspiracy theory is that there is a roughly constant supply of crazies who want to blow stuff up, that most of them are easy to catch, and that on occasion security agencies let one succeed so that they can get favorable-to-them legislation to happen.
An even more diluted version is that the security services aren't super human, and occasionally make mistakes. Some conspiracy, eh?
No, they are super-human, and all of this is part of an intentional plot to subvert us in a way that won't cause us to rise up and behead the super-humans currently running the show...
Guess you've never heard of Operation Gladio. Yes, these things have happened and will continue to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
I'm trying to understand your logic. You are saying that because one conspiracy was perhaps true, then this conspiracy is true? That is the logic that my toddler uses.
Try reading. Maybe you'll understand. Although that seems unlikely.
It's not so much that such an attack would be created by the government (which if that's what GP is saying, then I utterly agree with you). It's more what's done after the attack — painting it as a terrorist attack in the first place, then arguing that it like all terrorist attacks could have been prevented if intelligence were more powerful, etc.
I found it very interesting recently that the BBC has decided to stop using the word "terrorism" to report these attacks[1], and I hope that this will lead to a more nuanced argument over different events.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-has-just...
I agree that the "terrorist" label has become far too common. It's become so ridiculous that the BBC apparently considers "not terrorism" to be newsworthy, eg. from the first page of '"not terrorism" site:bbc.co.uk':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30826554 - Arson != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18725577 - Electronic cigarettes != terrorism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30423481 - Death threats != terrorism
The most interesting article in those results is the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/322301.stm - Nail bomb in London market != terrorism
That last one's from 1999, and provides a stark contrast. It's from a time when our home-grown terrorism mainly came from an organised guerilla army, who's achievements included blowing up government conferences. This kind of opportunistic maiming must have seemed inept in comparison.
It's interesting that the British terrorist attacks so far this millenium (7/7, Woolwich, etc.) are more akin to that "non-terrorist" nail bombing than to, for example, 9/11 or the Brighton Hotel bombing.
This only applies to BBC Arabic.
Ah, shame.
Conspiracy theories are bullshit 99% of the time, but you must be an idiot to think it's difficult to stage such a thing. Naivety is not a very cute trait in adults (but probably not as dangerous as chemtrail-type stupidity).
Maybe not planned, but the idea that they were "tolerated" because they promoted the agenda for a reasonably low cost seems not too far fetched. grabs tinfoil
"are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were?"
Welcome to Hacker New, where a sizeable proportion of the readership actually believe this stuff. Also, the NSA read and store everything you do on the Internet.
However, the discussions on technology issues are of a very high standard, which is why many of us are here.
For the vast majority of internet users, this is true.
Clarification: Maybe not actually read as most people understand the term, but collect, store, and analyze.
Much as I'm skeptical of many conspiracy 'types', I think dismissing them in such a facile manner is just stupid, especially if it's true that 'a sizeable proportion of the readership believe it'. If the latter is true, at least it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'.
"it's worth respecting that fact, rather than dismissing it as 'obviously ridiculous'"
That's not how the world works. If someone says "I think the government did 9/11", then it doesn't matter how many people agree with him. His opinion is still idiotic.
Similarly I do not have to respect anti-vaxers or Scientologists, just because there are many of them.
So you're saying no matter who says it in whatever demographic, you've made up your mind about this issue and that's that? If so, I pity your closed-mindedness, and I think we can't have a productive conversation.
(to be clear, I'm highly skeptical of overt conspiracies in general. But if a significant portion of my peers (HN readers) believe a thing, at the very least I try to seriously consider their point of view. Because I'm not infallible. Apparently you are?)
"I pity your closed-mindedness"
This is the main fallacy of the conspiracy theorist, that those who reject the absurd conspiracy have closed minds.
For more on this, see here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/answering-consp...