Newsweek admits: U.S. Gov Planned False Flags to Start War With Soviet Union, JFK Documents Show

Pupi said:
All were self-serving. Don't make it seem as if the founding fathers of America were altruists. They were all looking after their own interests and the main interest was independence, which they coalesced around.




You might think its a joke, but they do have galactic interests, which is why NASA exists. Locating threats to the planet, searching for life, new materials to keep building things. American factions might differ on many things, but this country is based on Liberalism - especially its economic facet (capitalism). They don't agree on everything, but they do negotiate everything and decide to do what they believe can best secure their goals. Realpolitik and capitalism are the main ideologies of this country and they are based on attaining materials for public consumption.




You're talking about lame policy differences that don't make much difference. Some things can be debated, because they don't matter. Others, however, aren't for debate and there is a single rationality dictating that. Dems and Repubs are two wings of the same bird.



Contingency. The administration did not believe that Cuba and the USSR would react in such a way during the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not only that, but Latin American nations didn't 100% support the U.S. in the Organization of American States and the U.N. was also pissed. U.S. can't do what it wants in Latin America without consensus.
Click to expand...

for the most part, i agree with this.

however, i dont believe that all politicians, past or present, are completely self serving. some of the founders owned slaves, and some did not. that fact alone shows that there were/are varying degrees of integrity among them. i also believe that there are some who attempt to do what they believe is the right thing for the country, but they are shackled by certain realities (campaign finance/public opinion) so they do what they feel they can within those bounds. then, there are others (a lot) who are entirely in the game for themselves, and their special interest cronies. some are likely a mix of all 3.

to me, this same notion applies to would-be false flags and other puppeteering activities. occasionally they may not agree on what type of shady shit to do, or they may just not need to do it any longer. but it does happen where one faction, or even one individual says, "we're not doing that shit."
 
Was newsweek covering up this info? Or did they report it when it became available?

The "newsweek admits" in the title bothers me because it sounds like how a conspiracy lunatic might be upset that a journalistic publication waits for evidence before printing a conspiracy story instead printing the kind of batshit-crazy speculation you see in the most lunatic, pants-shittingly deranged parts of the internet.

You know, the people who think that literally-insane conspiracy fantasies are credible because real conspiracies have been uncovered... even though they never bear resemblance to the lunatic gibberish being peddled.

Yes indeedy, the wording in that title makes me wonder what Newsweek did to cover up such a provocative story.
 
badascan said:
As well known and proven as it is, I find it a little frustrating or unsettling when people automatically take it off the table as a possibility when it comes to "attacks" or incidents that happen...
Click to expand...

I'm one of those people. If you want to say the government may have thought about planning the Vegas shooting (as an example) I'd think you're an idiot, but would have to agree that it's marginally possible because they've pondered staging attacks on Americans before.

If you say they perpetrated the Vegas shooting because of previous, abandoned ideas they had in the past, I'd tell you to shut the fuck up and go find some proof because doing the opposite gets fucktards on the internet all riled up to go out and hurt people in the real world.

For instance the article says they thought about planning a false flag streak, but it never got past the speculation phase and nothing was ever planned... which is a distinction completely lost on conspiracy fucktards.
 
Scheme said:
Actual news in this day in age that isn't a Trump tweet. Yey!

And just goes to show, the government is corrupt. No reason to ever make it bigger!
Click to expand...

Not sure why so many people voted to make it dumber, though.
 
What would be the need to false flag Russia at that time?... there were more than enough reasons to go to war, and one reason not to: mutually assured destruction. The flase-flag does nothing to offset the later, so it's pointless.
 
JosephDredd said:
I'm one of those people. If you want to say the government may have thought about planning the Vegas shooting (as an example) I'd think you're an idiot, but would have to agree that it's marginally possible because they've pondered staging attacks on Americans before.

If you say they perpetrated the Vegas shooting because of previous, abandoned ideas they had in the past, I'd tell you to shut the fuck up and go find some proof because doing the opposite gets fucktards on the internet all riled up to go out and hurt people in the real world.

For instance the article says they thought about planning a false flag streak, but it never got past the speculation phase and nothing was ever planned... which is a distinction completely lost on conspiracy fucktards.
Click to expand...

You absolutely are one of those people... things aren't always black/white. You're conceited and worried about your ego, thus you can't be content with the fact that people have different perspectives. Just like your myopic hypothetical, people develop scenarios based on information, sometimes anecdotal, sometimes from the distant past, sometimes unfounded, etc. With the knowledge of what the "government" is willing to conspire to do how can that possibility be automatically dismissed? You'd accept nothing as smoking gun evidence and are unfortunately too blinded to recognize that you're very similar to that which you so condemn, your "conspiracy fucktards"...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...
 
badascan said:
With the knowledge of what the "government" is willing to conspire to do how can that possibility be automatically dismissed?
Click to expand...

Do you realize the government was only willing to go as far as to write a few memos about conspiring in this (and most) cases? And the instances in which they've gone further in no way resemble the scenarios that unhinged internet dipshits put forward?

Do you understand that?

You'd accept nothing as smoking gun evidence and are unfortunately too blinded to recognize that you're very similar to that which you so condemn, your "conspiracy fucktards"...
Click to expand...

circumstantial evidence is significant and frequently all that's available. provided it's held to the standard of legal or journalistic investigations and not internet fucktards jerking off and fantasizing about tenuous or non-existent connections.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...
Click to expand...

Indeed it is not.

The problem with Internet conspiracy fucktards is that they have two options: turn up real evidence or say they suspect X happened but can't prove it.

Instead, what they do is make up crazy shit for facts/evidence/conclusions then drive themselves and their slobbering-idiot co-conspiratards into an absolute frenzy where they end up harassing victims of horrible tragedies.

You will never see me criticize a conspiracy-theorist who's conducting an investigation like a skilled investigator, but you may see me criticize his conclusions and methods if it can be proven he's making shit up. Which should be the most basic minimum standard any investigator is held to.
 
AviatorShades said:
We haven't come very far.

Half of the people who were ready to self-immolate in protest of the Iraq war a few years ago want to carpet bomb Syria now, because the CIA & Israel cherrypicked some disfigured baby photos and ordered their shills in the media to carry out a coordinated bombardment. For a while if you didn't want boots on the ground in Syria, you masturbated to dead babies (most of those kids turned out to be from pro-Assad families).

Then all the irredeemable buffoons who want to sanction Russia into a bloodied corner as revenge for "hacking our election" (Reality: Fishy evidence that a Russia-based group exposed our corrupt primaries and instead of thanking them, public reaction was scientifically conditioned by the usual suspects).
Click to expand...
This sad topic is oddly laughable coming from you.
 
VivaRevolution said:
N korea less than 2%

Iran, in a proxy war? We are already there. In a hot war? IDK, but it would mean WWIII.
Click to expand...

lol no, no major power will step in on iran's side.

Though the Ruskis would make a killing selling them weapons and mercenaries.
 
AviatorShades said:
Who are you and what's going on with your sentence structure?
Click to expand...
Nope, not worth my time today. If you don't know why your post paints you as a shitwit, I'm not surprised, and it's not worth trying to explain it to you.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Yes, they would. As they did in syria.
Click to expand...

lol no they wouldn't. Ruskis dropped some bombs on jihadists and terrorists, what you're deluded ass is thinking is they'd fire on Americans lol. Keep dreaming.

You're nuts if you think Ruskis would be dying for iranians, that's a very weak alliance. Both see one another as a rival down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,225
Messages
55,475,538
Members
174,786
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top