proven government conspiracies

[lazarus]

One standard response when I get involved in LIHOP debates is the concept that the government is just too big and inefficient and incompetent to pull off any sort of conspiracy.

So, other than the plans for Operation Northwoods, what conspiracies do we know the government was involved in that can be used to defeat this argument?

[dutchdemocrat]

1. Is this real?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=324644

[lazarus]

2. I have no idea

:shrug:

[Must_B_Free]

3. MKULTRA

.

[gandalf]

4. What kind of conspiracy?

One point is that not the whole government apparatus need to know. It would be sufficient to set a goal, the “dirty work” of planning and operating the details could be left to the CIA, for instance.

What kind of conspiracies do you mean? Within the US?
1) There is Pearl Harbor, naturally. Stinnet’s book (Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor) provides, I think, no proof, but a somewhat strong chain of indices and arguments, that P.H. was a LIHOP. As single very important files are missing in archives (really single files, while all others of the same kind are present), it is really hard to prove some points, e.g. when exactly Japanese radio communications could be deciphered. But it seems plausible to me that it could indeed be a conspiracy, and even one that is still not widely known (or believed) within the US. Even if it cannot be proven that it was a LIHOP, Stinnet proved that the government knew much more about the Japanese plans that it ever admitted, and even that could be called a conspiracy.

2) I read some stuff and hear two serious documentations aired by German public broadcasting stations that the terror in Italy in the seventies was initiated or even operated by CIA with the aim of fighting the communists. I have no English language sources at hand, but probable they could be found. The general aim was to influence political opinion by terrorist attacks, that could be (wrongly) attributed to left groups.
Also in Italy, CIA supported the Mafia, because they could provide votes that would avoid a victory of communists. I believe that is an established fact.
That would be a conspiracy, too, even though not in the US.

3) Chile naturally, Guatemala.

[lazarus]

6. a similar conspiracy, I guess

MKULTRA is a good one. I just get fed up with being told that the government is too incompetent/big/etc to pull off something like this, when in actuality it would take no more than a couple of dozen people, and not all of them would know all the truth.

[shatoga]

12. coup 53 Iran was cia overthrow of democracy 2 install RW dictator

Cen- Intel- >agency officers orchestrating the Iran coup ... directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party...<
In context below-




Iran
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

October 8, 1971: Nixon, Ehrlichman, and Richard Helms, 10:58 A.M-12:12 P.M., Oval Office
Conversation #587-7; cassette #1251

Nixon: Now, when you get into the dirty tricks department. . . what you're probably really concerned about. . . . and I well understand. I know what happened in Iran. And I also know what happened in Guatemala.
Helms: Sure.
Nixon: And I totally approved of both. And I also know what happened in the planning of the Bay of Pigs under Eisenhower - I totally approved of it. I also know that Kennedy was informed of it before he was president. Which of course he denied, and I understand why he did deny it.
....
Nixon: . . . . Listen, I've done more than my share of lying protection . I believe it's totally right to do it. . . . The other thing you need to have from me is assurance. I am not going to embarrass the CIA because it's very important. Second, I believe in dirty tricks. I think you've got to do it -...

[OneBlueSky]

5. whether their involvement was active or passive . . .

and I have no doubt it was one or the other . . . the scary thing is that it didn't work . . .

they needed a Pearl Harbor to put Americans into a perpetual state of fear so they'd give the country's leaders unquestioned loyalty in time of crisis . . . while it worked for awhile, and while they continue to do everything possible to reinforce the fear, the fact is that Americans are beginning to see through the facade and question just what the hell happened on 9/11 . . . and, as Bush's poll numbers attest, there is no longer any semblence of unqestioned loyalty to BushCo . . .

what makes this scary is that they're probably going to need another Pearl Harbor -- bigger and badder -- to get their plans back on track . . . I shudder to think what may be in store for us in the coming weeks/months/year . . .

[Abe Linkman]

7. What is the basis for the case of only incompetency?

I don't mean anyone in particular. Especially someone who can pull the plug anytime they want to without having to justify it.

I'm talking in general. Our Gov't can put a man on the Moon, but all of the factual record of their involvment on Earth is mostly a record of incompetency?

Please. Again, NOT you. But, if I were defending the Gov't; I'd be tempted to try and sell that argument, too. (incompetency or negligence)

[lazarus]

15. I dunno

But they always plead incompetence. It's the Big Lie again. The government is incompetent, conspiracies can't happen, the media is liberal, it's all (shudder) synergy.

[RH]

28. You dunno

That's right, 'cause you can't have it both ways.

:think:

If there is a criminal conspiracy it is only because somebody else was incompetent enough to let it happen.

Or is everybody supposed to be deliberately guilty?

Who then is to run the show?

Lazarus?

[lazarus]

35. What?

Your questions don't really make any sense. Are you taking the position that government criminal conspiracies can't happen?

[RH]

37. The point is

that whether or not criminal conspiracies happen depends not so much upon who wants to make them happen, but rather upon what there is to stop them.

Most conspiracies happen unconsciously, or with very little conscious effort, simply because enough people happen to be moved towards the same end because of a common motivation.

In the case of 9/11 it may eventually make more sense to think in terms of "death wish" rather than 'MIHOP'.

[RH]

27. the basis

is experience.

How many cases of administrative corruption have you ever happened to look closely into?

Flying to the Moon is a relatively simple affair, with a small number of significant, predictable variables. Human affairs are infinitely complex, unpredictable. Institutions work mainly by virtue of the forces of their habits.

The factual record of their involvment on Earth is indeed otherwise and mostly a record of incompetency, usually known as "history". Or did you think that the persistence of warfare was invariably a well organised constructive sort of recreational amusement, like some sort of children's video game?

[DulceDecorum]

8. How about

the last election?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Bay of Pigs. No...ummm - Watergate! No...

Hmmm. The meme we're to combat is that the government is too big/inefficient/incompetent to "pull off" the big huge conspiracies. This means a successful conspiracy, and success means evasion of exposure. Both the Bay and Watergate were exposed....hmmmm.

Teapot Dome!

Drat...there's got to be one or two out there...Iran-Contra! Double drat...

...other than the plans for Operation Northwoods, what conspiracies do we know the government was involved in...

I hate to be the one that points out the obvious, but isn't the backstory behind Operation Northwoods that the plan was drafted but rejected? So can we really count this one as a conspiracy "we know the government was involved in?" If they didn't carry it out, then they weren't really involved in it, were they?

Gulf of Tonkin! Damn...

:shrug:

[shatoga]

13. JFK rejected Northwoods/ W approved and authorized it!

difference between a president of the United States (JFK) and a president of the military industrial complex (W).

[demodewd]

14. imagine that!

I can't imagine that idiot "authorizing" anything. I mean its just really hard to imagine.

[LearnedHand]

10. We know the government knew...

...Pearl Harbor was going to happen but didn't do anything about it, supposedly to protect the fact that they had broken the Enigma machine.

[plaguepuppy]

16. Enigma

The Enigma machine was a German code machine, sort of a scrambling typewriter that used a constantly shifting alphabet substitution code. The code was broken largely thanks to Alan Turing in 1942, and Churchill learned of an impending raid on Canterbury. Rather than let the Germans know that the Enigma code had been broken the information was not used to prevent the raid.
(http://www.digiserve.com/peter/war/hs1.htm)

[LearnedHand]

11. ...and NO ONE knew...

...about the friggin' Manhattan project. Millions of dollars, a multitude of sites, and not even the workers knew exactly what was going on. The rest of the world sure didn't know.

[shatoga]

17. & the A-bomb/& Area 51-- but wait --Russians knew

Because several scientists sent copies of all their reports (including bomb blueprints) to Soviet Intelligence.

Conspired to keep the truth from US citizens but Russians knew.

Researchers seeking information bought Soviet satellite recon photos of Area-51.
Only US citizens were kept ignorant.
Just like the truth about 9/11!
French and Germans have deduced the truth, but Americans
are still ignorant.
Some are even willfully ignorant.

[leftofthedial]

18. The Judicial junta of 2000 was a government conspiracy

The Warren Commission was a government conspiracy

It is now kown that the official government explanation for Lincoln's assassination was bogus.

The Nixon-Watergate coverup was a government conspiracy.

Iran Contra was a government conspiracy.

MKULTRA, Project Bluebook, numerous and various experiments conducted on civilians and military personnel without their knowledge were government conspiracies.

The entire Teapot Dome scandal was a government conspiracy.

The CIA coups in Chile, Iran, Viet Nam (at least twice), the Philipines, any number of Central American countries--all were government conspiracies, now matters of public record.

[westerby]

19. This question leads to a paradox

The best proof would be a government conspiracy that was successful. If it were successful, it would be unknown to the public and therefore to us. We could not provide it as an answer to your question.
The best we can provide is a conspiracy that was uncovered some time later. But the opponent who claims that “government is too big and inefficient to carry out a real conspiracy” could then argue that the examples we provided showed exactly that if the government tries a conspiracy it fails because it is so inefficient.
BUT we can disprove the idea that the government has any scruples.
And to this point I would like to add the

Iraqis-killed-babies-in-incubators story, designed by Hill & Knowlton,

that should convince the public to enter the first gulf war.
That was proven as a conspiracy. It was uncovered later, but then it had served its purpose.
However, it seems this conspiracy is not widely known and not kept in mind when the statements of government are evaluated. That shows that conspiracies work, because media and the public do not seem to be unforgiving or having a good memory when they were lied to.

[Braden]

20. House Select Committe on Assasinations

concluded that there was a conspiracy (ie Oswald was not alone) in Murdering JFK.

They would not state who did in fact participate. but one can draw logical conclusions from the autopsy photos from the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda which show wounds inconsistent from those reported by the trauma surgeons in Dallas, that the only conspirators that could have been involved were US Govt. Personnel.

[westerby]

21. Do you have a source at hand?

This not meant to criticize the claim, but some people still say “it was only Oswald, you conspiracy theorist!”. A senate report would be a nice proof.

[Abe Linkman]

22. If you really want to know; look it up.

You have to be terribly naive to believe that Gov'ts everywhere don't engage in conspiracies. You also have to be ignorant of history to believe that. And, do you know ANYONE who DOESN'T hold the belief that "all politicians" are liars?

Other than the naive and the ignorant, you also have those whose hidden agenda requires the debunking of truthseekers.

[plaguepuppy]

23. A comment from Byers, of the Lone Gunmen

Byers: "My name is John Fitzgerald Byers. I was named after our 35th president, and I keep having this beautiful dream. In my dream, the events of November 22nd, 1963, never happened. In it, my namesake was never assassinated. Other things are different, too, in my dream. My country is hopeful and innocent; young again. Young in spirit. My fellow citizens trust their elected officials, never once having been betrayed by them. My government is truly 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. All my hopes for my country, for myself... all are fulfilled. I have everything a person could want; home and family... and love. Everything that counts for anything in life... I have it. But the dream ends the same way every time. I lose it all."

[westerby]

24. Sorry, probably you misinterpreted my post

"You have to be terribly naive to believe that Gov'ts everywhere don't engage in conspiracies. You also have to be ignorant of history to believe that."

I said nothing of that kind. I am always inclined to believe the worst of governments, especially those in the US.

I only asked for convenience. I thought perhaps Braden had a source ready. I glanced at the results of the Warren commission, but without reading it more carefully I cannot detect a conspiracy possibility.

I have MB’s of material on possible government conspiracies, 9/11 contradictions, and so on, on my hard drive. Only I cannot deal with too much conspiracies at the same time in the same intensity while I am supposed to work. And my focus is 9/11.

[Braden]

26. Google HSCA 1979

or HSCA JFK MLK, there are far too many sources to give one definitive link. The report is public record.

[westerby]

32. Thanks. n/t

[lazarus]

25. update

Not a single one of the Bush apologists who were attacking me in my most recent debate about this issue saw fit to respond to a list of proven government conspiracies. They fled the field of battle.

Thank you all.

[Abe Linkman]

29. Latest U.S. conspiracy (involving blowing up an airplane & killing a Prez)

Here's a link for the story on the C.I.A.'s plan to blow up the plane carrying (elected) President Chavez from Caracas to Washington & NYC. The President's travel plans were canceled (within the past day or two).

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=11121

[westerby]

31. Seems possible

Some months ago, when there was the general strike in Venezuela, I read in my newspaper in a subordinate clause that the CIA might be involved. They did not further discuss or comment on this shocking information later on. This newspaper is really afraid of "conspiracy theories" and normally ridicules them.

[Abe Linkman]

30. This readable article shows U.S. complicity (or worse) in 9-11

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

[LARED]

33. Here's a conspiracy that's 135 years old

I just finished reading a book called 'Blood on the Moon.' It's about the Lincoln assassination and I was surprised to find that there still exists a conspiracy theory advocating that Booth escaped from Garretts farm and the government covered it up.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbooth.html

[PATRICK]

34. different types of LIH

One is merely a choice of priorities and blowing off all other choices and possibilities. That is the standard intractable Bushco mode since day one. At least that and if there was more deliberate facilitating it could easily move in self-justfying nearly subconscious modes of truth denial. This is certainly the kindest interpretation that a real accountable investigation might settle for to "spare us the unthinkable". I think once acting irressponsibly, naively or cruelly callous along these lines it must be inevitable that real LIHOP appartus or manipulation would naturally take place.

In any event, holding the Bush team accountable and getting rid of their self-serving lies and secrecy would be more than enough to impeach them and correct the situation. If they have guts- for once- getting all the truth out would be refreshing not a "tearing preoccupation" every hand wringing authority would be whining about.

Bush lies and absolute insane stubborn fixedness on his narrow agenda are more than adequate justification for approaching the 9/11 investigation in terms of a culpable failure of great magnitude on the upper administration's part.

Of course the secrecy and lack or a tough investigation leaves us guessing but keep looking. Some nugget may drop at a propitious time and it should be made to go all the way, not just to dump George and cover up the rest.

[DulceDecorum]

36. Suffer the little children

Conspiracy of Silence...MUST SEE!!!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=392459

Sex, Lies, Videotape, Teenagers, Drugs, Blackmail, and Death
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388cd49f5ce8.htm

[zipple]

38. proven government conspiracies

It is potentially a paradox. At least as far as what you wish to use if for. You would
do well to strictly define what you mean by conspiracy. Also, you might wish to
narrowly define "prove". I'd suggest for the former, you stick to "activities not
authorized by existing powers of the office". As for "proof", I'd suggest
admission by at least one co-conspirator and/or some sort of trial which
established guilt. Some early ones might be some of the more secretive missions and negotiations
of the birth of the country. Jefferson's aquisition of the Lousiana Territory for example.
A more recent my be the acknowledged "encouragement" of the JFK admin to
the S. Vietnamese to overthrown their existing rulers. Watergate of course applies.
Iran/contra of course. Not sure how you want to view Hamilton's whisper campaigns
against Adams to ensure Washington was elected. Sorta fails on the definition side.
You might find some in the various efforts for westward expansion, aquisition of
Texas, movement of native americans, transcontinental railroad, that kinda thing.

[Dancing_Dave]

39. 50's CIA Assasination in Iran

In the 1950's, the CIA assasinated a popular democratically elected President, Mossedeq, and replaced him with the brutal, greedy and forever unpopular Shaw...it took years for Iran to gather a revolution capable of throwing him out. By then the Iranian's had turned strangely "anti-American". So Rumsfeld started giving millions in weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein next door in Iraq...in short, a U.S. Government conspiracy started the downward spiral we are still in in the Persian Gulf!

[Shadows]

40. Too inefficient and incompetent...

One reason "the government is just too inefficient and incompetent... IS... to pull off any sort of conspiracy!!! Its compartmentalized structure with an embedded "need to know" requirement for obtaining even low-level information keeps all but those at the TOP echelons of government from having access to the "big picture." Such an overall design is, of course, seemingly inefficient, but meant to frustrate enemies from WITHIN as well as from without, no?

And the final touch of genius? "Invisibility!" An unknown rich and powerful elite who control the puppets we call Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators...know quite well the wisdom of remaining... ANONYMOUS... to all but a chosen few. A bitter lesson learned from the past, when kings DID lose their heads from time to time... After all, if worse comes to worst, a popular uprising can be directed only against KNOWN targets... Presidents may fall... the elite who pulls the strings do not.

At least, that is my take on it...

Thanks for listening...