Rick Reuben wrote:

newberry wrote: That's why people were also quite anxious during the Cold War

Probably just the conspiracy theorist in me talking here, but I think suspicion that the enemies are amongst us is higher ( much higher ) than it has been previously in US history, and that breeds paranoia. There was suspicion about the 'real' reasons for WW I or the Depression or WW II or Vietnam in their times, but not like the suspicion that many of us feel about the Oz-like world of the War on Terror.

Not only that, but this supposed paranoia, heightened or not, is seemingly a symptom of the fact that it's obvious something is wrong, and mass cognitive dissonance ensues. Add all the typical generational and cultural clashes, and you have the recipe for a fine paranoia...

this is from rense, but still.

http://rense.com/general78/warning.htm

hogrot wrote:this is from rense, but still.

http://rense.com/general78/warning.htm

You don't think this is a hoax, as was pointed out on that page?

At the very least I think we're nearing a new cultural dark age.

newberry wrote:

hogrot wrote:this is from rense, but still.

http://rense.com/general78/warning.htm

You don't think this is a hoax, as was pointed out on that page?

i don't know what i think.

all this shit is wrapped in so many layers of confusion, i don't put anything past anyone. with rense, if the darkest of all darknesses isn't coming from a zionist/israeli agenda, he will do what he can to derail the theories because he's got so much invested in anti-israel conspiracy.

From the Rense link:

Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States.

It's hard to believe that there is "massive evidence" that Cheney et al are planning the next 9/11. If so, let's see it? If it's massive evidence, why don't they call Sy Hersh or Greg Palast or The Washington Post?

newberry wrote:It's hard to believe that there is "massive evidence" that Cheney et al are planning the next 9/11. If so, let's see it? If it's massive evidence, why don't they call Sy Hersh or Greg Palast or The Washington Post?

it's hard to believe we've walked on the moon and that life exists in the san andreas trench. this hoax/claim as a satanist neocon agend to me is not nearly as hard to believe.

if this is legit which i don't necessarily think it is, i'm sure they are calling hersh and gertz and palast, but as soon as these mainstream reporters who are owned and gagged ten times over find the claims are coming from conspiracists or radicals, they close their eyes and hit the mute button. you don't want to give the conch to anyone with an axe to grind.

it's hard to believe we've walked on the moon

It's quite an amazing feat, but it's not hard for me to believe, because there is ample evidence--photographs, firsthand accounts, moon rocks, etc. If there is massive evidence of Cheneyco planning 9/11 the sequel, where is it? Have they presented it on the Web somewhere? If not, why not?

If there was massive evidence that this was true, someone would run it, like the New Yorker that ran Hersh's Abu Ghraib story. Also, the Washington Post recently ran an excellent series on Cheney: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

I agree that the US media has serious problems, including the fact that the majority of it is owned by only a few corporations. However, it's bullshit to say that the entire media is muzzled. There was a claim on another thread that Palast was blacklisted by the US MSM, which is demonstrably untrue. His stories are underreported, but I found many examples of giant mainstream media outlets covering his investigations.

Media outlets are concerned first and foremost with making money. If there was evidence that Cheney was planning 9/11 part 2, they could sell a lot of papers.

re: Massive evidence. This type of stuff is just as bullshit as Chertoff saying he had a "hunch" that a terror attack was imminent. It's all unsubstantiated scare tactics. If you have evidence - present it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

barndog wrote:It's all unsubstantiated scare tactics.

that seems like the safe bet and i really hope you're right.

barndog wrote:Otherwise shut the fuck up.

who are you, the thought police? i'll say what i want and you'll either deal with it or not read it.