July 12, 2005

Chock Full of Nuts

David T. at Harry's Place links to this twisted article from Indymedia UK. I only check out Indymedia when its loopier moments are linked by someone else (as here, for example) so I'm in no position to judge whether it represents a "sad decline" or not, but it sure is something else.

It's a highly dramatic, stylized alternative universe spy tale, in which a goateed Spock... er, I mean, a goateed Tony Blair gleefully plans the 7/7 bombings along with his collaborators MI5, MI6, the Israelis, the Americans, the Freemasons and the City of London in order to further his goal of eventually crowning himself the Prince of Europe.

It's what an antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Anglo, alternative history, Da Vinci code sort of Tom Clancy might sound like, I suppose. We have Tony Blair ("trying to look shocked and concerned, but inwardly full of glee...") along with his "namesake and fellow occultist" Chief of Police Sir Ian Blair; and we have Netanyahu ("Hashem," [he] growled softly, "deliver us from the ignorant Goyim and their slow-witted ways.")

Many of the comments attached to the article are skeptical, but those are the boring ones. Here's a snip from one of the more "interesting" ones:

a plausible account of last thursday's events, and although much of it is supposition, it has the ring of, if not actual truth, then probability about it...

It seems to me more likely that Blair, far from being the great organiser, was simply told that this attack would be happening in order to further the aims of the campaign towards a global fascist superstate, or One World Government.

The only concession he may have been able to wrend was that the devices were relatively small, and therefore the loss of life was minimal.

In my view Blair is a spineless monster and was aware of the plan, but I dont feel he had any choice in the attacks.

I agree with James that this is orchestrated and implemented from within the ranks of Freemasonry, and that much of it is financed and organised from within the Square Mile of the City of London, but what we should not lose sight of is that these are, in motive and means if not composition, essentially Zionist entities, as is the Bush administration and the British establishment.


I posted the link in the comments to this long spiraled-out-of-control post about George Galloway, and our resident pseudonymous conventional wisdom-averse Iranian nationalist commenter indicated that this "perspective" is basically what he had in mind, with unspecified reservations. Have at, folks.

Posted by Dr. Frank at July 12, 2005 06:18 PM | TrackBack
Comments

A riveting piece of fiction, but while the writing style used did have a beat and rhythm to it, most people would be sent to a thesaurus too often to appreciate the context of the work. I'll wait for the movie.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 12, 2005 07:50 PM

You mean this?

http://www.wnbc.com/news/4701766/detail.html

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 12, 2005 07:51 PM

Well, this can only go one of two ways: A resounding success tugging at the heartstrings of the American patriots or a final career ending blunder for Cage and Stone, both of which I care little for in the movie business, although Cage was tolerable in Con-Air, The Rock and National Treasure.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 12, 2005 09:32 PM

This is actually a better link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2122431/&#revolt

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 12, 2005 09:39 PM


oh honest to pete...i'll watch it if it shows Guliani and all his secret connections.

i'm telling you he's a mob boss! ;)

Mr.Zaph,was National Treasure actually worth watching?i still haven't seen it.

Posted by: just me at July 12, 2005 09:50 PM

What is it with you and the "loony left," anyway?

Posted by: The Chimpunks at July 12, 2005 09:56 PM

I liked national treasure. It was Conspiracy Theory meets Indiana Jones, but not as intelligent as either. Dumb fun.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 12, 2005 10:38 PM

Okay, after reading your second link, Frank, I think it's pretty obvious this is going to piss a lot of people off and will probably be the nail in the coffin for Stone and Cage. Happy trails......

Posted by: Zaphod at July 12, 2005 10:40 PM

oooh....what happened? i had this awful dream; i was being attacked by a smug iranian carrying an enormous thesaurus...

Posted by: lefty at July 12, 2005 10:50 PM

The script was written to deliberately derail the 9/11 "truth movement". What better way to not have critics of the official 9/11 story taken seriously than to cast Nicolas Cage?

Think about the names. "Stone". "Cage". Do these suggest freedom to you?

I rest my case.

Posted by: Wes at July 13, 2005 12:58 AM

For those of you interested in yet additional theories on who done the London bombings, Michael Ledeen proposes another titilating angle.

He thinks the culprit for the London bombings is, you guessed it, the country he's been agitating to attack for a decade now - Iran!

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200507110809.asp

So to clarify, accusing Israel of bad things is just one big anti-Semitic conspiracy gone wild, but accusing Iran of the same, despite such claims being utterly devoid of common sense or evidence, is, well, our War on Terror in a nutshell.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 13, 2005 04:57 AM

Shouldn't those who supposedly question conventional wisdom, question the idea that "[the media] control culture, they control ideas." I never hear anybody offer a mechanism for how this happens.

Posted by: josh at July 13, 2005 02:24 PM

Getting back to the original Indymedia link: if there was a lick of truth to this "news," why would it have to be told as a melodramatic third person omniscient narrative?

The second portion of the article is allegations with no evidence provided to back them up, one of the more laughable ones being Osama bin Laden is on the CIA payroll under the name "Tim Osman." Who is the source for such an outrageous claim? "Diligent researchers and real journalists who aren't fooled by government propaganda." Oh, okay. I'll believe you then.

People need to think critically about their sources for news - for example the motives of the people they get it from. This guy seems bent on outing the "occultists." Now before you turn this argument around on me for believing MSNBC, ABC, CNN, the Daily Show, etc., bear in mind that the media is big business. If their truly was a worldwide occultist zionist freemason US UK al Qeada conspiracy (since when did those groups get along anyway,) one of the networks would have found its market niche, and made a lot of money, by uncovering it by now. I hate to tell you, but they wouldn't have been beat to a story this big by some dude with a computer in his basement.

When I was a kid I used to read a lot of books on UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, unsolved mysteries, secret societies, Bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids and Nazca lines, etc. They were very entertaining but eventually you realize they are all bunk: they are essentially the same story retold in many different ways.

Posted by: buckeye bill at July 13, 2005 04:16 PM

I actually don't disagree with you critiquing the article in this way.

It contains statements of alleged fact that are completely open to question, though the same is no less true of the official government version of events.

In the interests of finding out the truth, don't you think one should apply the same standard of review to, for example, self-serving statements from government sources (i.e., "After thorough review of our own actions, we have concluded that we have done nothing wrong.")?

The allegations contained in the Indymedia article are no more questionable than the official government theory.

You can agree with whichever one you like, so long as you accept that either account is open to considerable question.

I only object to the mindless categorization of one account as "nuts" and the other as gospel, as Frank believes is the sensible way to go.

It is no more "nuts" to believe a covert military intelligence agency killed people than to believe a band of psycho Arabs are invading London and New York.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 13, 2005 04:48 PM

I just don't get it.
It is more "nuts" to think that there is a secret government agency killing its own citizens for... well, for what? To impose "their" morals? Why would "they" need to take such a risk of having their scheme found out? Especially since “they” are the ones in power right now anyway. If the people "they" are trying to control found out about the plan, there would be major hell to pay. The public isn't so stupid and powerless that they'd just sit by and let something like that happen. A conspiracy of this size would require not only the support and absolute silence of people who pulled it off but probably the support of the entire armed services to quell the upheaval that would occur should this plan come to light. Don’t confuse support for current policies (as stupid as I personally find them) as support for the slaughter of your own people. And, as sad and morally bad as it may be, Westerners will put up with civilian casualties in other lands, but not in their own.
Well, then maybe it's the Jews trying to turn the West against the Muslims? The thought that Israel would kill the citizens of the few countries that actually support them on the world stage to drum up support is kind of far fetched. If a plot such as this was discovered, Israel could kiss any foreign support good bye and the West would probably encourage a "regime change" there too.
Or, is it easier to believe that people who did this are a small group who are motivated by the fact that they have what they believe to be a noble, godly cause in which death is just a speed bump on the road to Utopia? It really doesn't take much to make an explosion. All you need is something that expands really, really fast in a container that can almost, but not quite, hold it. Logically, it seems much more plausible that a small group of motivated people with access to pretty common ingredients could pull this off, than it does to think there is a government conspiracy requiring dozens of operatives who all must be properly trained monsters with no regard for the people they consider to be "their own."
And no, this argument is not anti-Muslim. The emotional state required to kill yourself or others in the name of a greater good is a pretty common thing, from the 9/11 hijackers to the Oklahoma Christian Racist ass-clowns to the ETA in Spain to any number of Red Faction Army types in Europe.
Emotion beats conspiracy here.

Posted by: The Pope of Chili Town at July 13, 2005 05:59 PM

Er, sorry about the spacing above.

And has Nicholas Cage made a "good" movie since Leaving Las Vegas?

Posted by: The Pope of Chili Town at July 13, 2005 06:17 PM

I don't think the author was trying to say this IS his belief, but rather offering up an alternate reality fictional universe thus Frank's reference to the Star Trek "Mirror Mirror" episode. I think you guys are wanting to read what you want into the story even though they are not intended or simply are not there.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 13, 2005 06:22 PM

hmmm I kind of thought Leaving Las Vegas sucked myself, but I'm purely the opposite of Siskel and his cronies.

Posted by: Zaphod at July 13, 2005 06:23 PM

Oh, I totally agree the author probably didn't think it was true (however, who really knows) but way too many "rational" people think that it is plausible enough to actually happen.

Plus, bearded Spock was wwaayyy more bad ass than real Spock.

And finally, need I remind you of the pool scene in Leaving Las Vegas? Second only to the pool scene in Fast Times... Also which had Nicholas Cage in a cameo role. There's your conspiracy!!!

Posted by: The Pope of Chili Town at July 13, 2005 06:39 PM

I can't say I have had too many occasions to articulate this sentiment: the Pope is clearly right.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 13, 2005 06:50 PM

"It is no more "nuts" to believe a covert military intelligence agency killed people than to believe a band of psycho Arabs are invading London and New York"

Unless the "band of psycho Arabs" start shouting "Yes, we did it, and we'll did it again. Death to the indefedels" etc. Doesn't it carry any wieght with you, AU, that the groups you are claiming are innocent are actually seeking credit?

Posted by: josh at July 13, 2005 07:09 PM

Please correct my grammer/spelling as you see fit. Sorry.

Posted by: josh at July 13, 2005 07:13 PM

'''''Unless the "band of psycho Arabs" start shouting "Yes, we did it, and we'll did it again. Death to the indefedels" etc. Doesn't it carry any wieght with you, AU, that the groups you are claiming are innocent are actually seeking credit?''''''

That's not an admission by Arabs.

It's a admission by someone claiming to be an Arab.

Big difference.

How do you know it's real? Shouldn't you question the authenticity of such a gratutious admission by an organization that no one in the world can prove even exists?

If that is all it takes to prove guilt to you, then an admission to the effect of: "Yes, we the Secret Organization of Mossad Zionist Freemasons of Europe" take full responsibility for all of the attacks, must carry the same weight, since there is exactly the same amount of proof that the Secret Organization of Mossad Zionist Freemasons of Europe is real as there is that the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe is real.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 13, 2005 08:32 PM

Frank, have you considered the possibility that this is the work of the notorious Bill Posters?

He was *framed*, I tell you.

Posted by: Wes at July 13, 2005 08:34 PM

Dear everyone,

We admit it. It was all us. And we'll do it again, too!

Posted by: Secret Organization of Mossad Zionist Freemasons of Europe at July 13, 2005 08:48 PM

No, no, *we* did it!

We bombed London because we do not like freedom and democracy and happiness, and London represents all that is free and democratic and happy.

Cobra!!!!


Posted by: Cobra Commander at July 13, 2005 08:53 PM

AU,

Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden exists, but the tapes of him are forgeries, or do you believe that their is no such person?

Posted by: josh at July 13, 2005 08:53 PM

"If that is all it takes to prove guilt to you"

I didn't say that that was all it takes to prove guilt to me, but regarding this proposition:

"It is no more "nuts" to believe a covert military intelligence agency killed people than to believe a band of psycho Arabs are invading London and New York.";

it certainly tips the scales.

Posted by: josh at July 13, 2005 08:56 PM


Cobra Commander!

I knew it,our troops our on their way!

Remember kids,knowing is half the battle.

Posted by: Go GI Joe at July 13, 2005 09:08 PM

Aryamehr U. - It's a conspiracy wrapped in a plot inside a government agenda, but you can't blame us for it because it's all the work of little green men.

(you should be glad it wasn't the work of the Reticulan greys, who are notorious for their extraction of terrestrial human livers)

The truth is out there.

The second part of our devious plan involves an army made up of undead dogs & soldiers. Zombie kafir gonna get you if you don't watch out.

funny thing - that last part is true...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html

Posted by: mary at July 14, 2005 03:52 PM

Well, so far we have the following groups all publicly claiming responsibility for the London attacks:

1. The Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe;

2. The Secret Organization of Mossad Zionist Freemasons of Europe;

3. Cobra; and

4. Whatever Mary is talking about.

Despite the unsolicited public admissions of guilt by each of these parties, needless to say, the veracity of each of the admissions is of considerable questionability.

So, again, why accept one improbable, baseless, and phoney admission of guilt by a non-existant group, and simultaneously categorize all others as "nuts?"

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 14, 2005 04:29 PM

I think we have stumbled upon the root of the problem. Arya cannot, at all, distinguish between sarcasm, trustworthy news reports and internet rumors.

I just have one question, Arya. Seriously - do you believe Jews are descended from pigs?

Posted by: melody chest at July 14, 2005 04:35 PM

The Londoners that plotted the bombing did not do so on their own. They had help in fabricating this elaborate scheme. Who helped them? One of two groups and they both go hand in hand 1)Al Quaida 2)The resistance fighters and Saddam Loyalists of Iraq. I believe it was Al Quaida due to the Saddam loyalists having their hands full at this time, unless they contracted help from the Syrians.

As I've said before 775 was chosen because it was the year Al-Mansur died and this attack was revenge for the role Britain has played in the invasion of Iraq.

Read on:
Mansur, al- [Arab.,=the victorious], d. 775, 2d Abbasid caliph (754–75) and founder of the city of Baghdad. His name was in full Abu Jafar abd-Allah al-Mansur. He was brother and successor of Abu al-Abbas. A vigorous and dominating caliph, he successfully consolidated his empire even though it was threatened by internal strife and foreign wars. He could not prevent the secession of Muslim Spain, however, under the Umayyad prince Abd ar-Rahman I. Mansur lived at first, as his brother had, near Kufa, but in 762 he began to build a new city, Baghdad.

citation:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0831613.html

Posted by: Zaphod at July 14, 2005 04:44 PM

Look, Arya, they identified the guys, caught them on CC TV and everything: Britons of Pakistani descent.

I guess you think they're not deluded religious fanatics who turned to terrorism, but rather stooges. Or maybe that the whole investigation is a fake from top to bottom, or that these kids were MI5-Mossad agents themselves. Leaving Islamists out of it, there's no shortage of examples of kids turning to political terror in our modern society. And not so many clear cases of their having been CIA agents, though the pop culture critique of political violence has always been full of such allegations, whether they're talking about the SLA, IRA, RAF, Weatherman, or what have you. Such theories often arise as a means to express dissatisfaction with ones own political culture, or as a roundabout way to apologize for or "redeem" the purported ideological background of the terrorists. (e.g. the SLA's Cinque was a CIA agent in an operation designed to discredit Maoism in the public eye.) I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, but I suspect there must be some reason that a far-reaching, over-arching, worldwide conspiracy involving dozens of governments and security organizations and thousands upon thousands of conspirators, known only to you, seems no more implausible than the idea that four demented religiously-inspired terrorists blew themselves up on public transport in London.

It's not like such things are unprecedented. Islamists blow themselves up all the time. Or is Hamas a Mossad-CIA organization, too?

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 14, 2005 05:17 PM

OK, look... I did it, OK? Just blame me like you blame me for everything from 9-11 to your latest hangnail.
Just say I was trying to impress Jody Foster.
She still hasn't called, by the way.

Posted by: George W. Bush at July 14, 2005 05:43 PM

I'm sure the suicide bombers (it seems likely now that that's what went down) thought they were doing it for their particular version of Allah.

It still doesn't preclude Let-It-Happen-On-Purpose or Make-It-Happen-On-Purpose conspiracies. I could probably use some psychoanalysis too, I suppose, but there's still enough weirdness attached to this story -- even in credible (double entendre) news sources -- to lead me to doubt that this was a completely homegrown, under-the-radar operation.

Even if you accept the current official story, they're looking for at least a couple of individuals with "outside connections". Meaning that the "normal Britons" who blew themselves up were, in some sense, just the expendable footsoldiers.

Posted by: Wes at July 14, 2005 06:31 PM

With Pierce Brosnan retired, and no new James Bond having been named, obviously London was left wide open to this sort of attack. Why don't the DO something about this problem?

Posted by: Stig at July 14, 2005 06:39 PM

Sure, Wes; I don't think anyone would argue that these guys weren't aided, abetted, funded, organized, encouraged, by others. Most would say it was probably Islamist extremists who did the aiding and abetting, but as you point out, that doesn't necessarily rule out the theory that it was Tony Blair carrying out the orders of his Jewish paymasters. I'd say the burden of proof is on those espousing the latter theory, however.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 14, 2005 06:50 PM

Frank,

Isn't the War on Terror also predicated upon a far-reaching, over-arching, worldwide conspiracy involving dozens of governments and security organizations and thousands upon thousands of terrorist conspirators with an irrational, self-destructive motive?

How is that concept any less stupid or improbable than the ones you categorize as completely nuts?

Because a few Western governments say it's so?

Certainly other governments differ in their outlook.

Explain why one outlook is a bona fide fact and the other is a worthless conspiracy theory?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 14, 2005 07:40 PM

Hamas, as well as Hezbollah and other armed groups opposed to Israel, have deliberately attacked Israeli civilians as a war tactic against invaders on their homeland.

I don't dispute that. But what's your point?

The government of Israel also deliberately attacks Palestinian civilians as a war tactic.

Israel and the Palestinians are parties to a war against each other.

This is totally different than randomly attacking civilian populations of countries that are a not a party to the conflict, thousands of miles away from the conflict.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 14, 2005 07:53 PM

Well, if I understand you, you're saying that you believe (a) suicide bombs in Israel are a justifiable tactic; that (b) suicide bombs are not a justifiable tactic outside of Israel; ergo, suicide bombs outside of Israel cannot possibly be perpetrated by Islamists. Must be the Israelis, then. I am unpersuaded.

Look, we're not going to convince each other, clearly. Thanks for your illuminating comments.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 14, 2005 08:12 PM

There's no need for you to gratuitiously re-phrase what I've said.

What I said is already up there for all to see.

But, for the sake of clarifying your "understanding" of my statements, let us re-cap.

I believe: (a) Palestinian nationalists attacking Israeli civilians during war with Israel is as justified as Israeli nationalists attacking Palestinian civilians during war with Palestine; that (b) Palestinian groups have not attacked civilians in nations that are not a party to the war because they believe, according to their own statements, that such an attack is not a justifiable tactic against any country not party to the war.

Ergo, your attempt to use Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians as evidence of precedent for Palestinian violence against civilians in countries not party to the war does not work.

By the way, even if we're not going to agree, the least you can do is let my statements stand as they are, instead of re-phrasing and distorting my statements for rhetorical purposes.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 14, 2005 08:49 PM

Hey Pot, the Kettle is on line one, he wants to tell you that you're black.

Posted by: The Pope of Chili Town at July 14, 2005 09:12 PM

What's wrong with being black?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 14, 2005 10:04 PM

Any dark skinned individual in general shouldn't be trusted.

Posted by: Neal at July 14, 2005 10:10 PM

Please tell me you're joking, AU. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. You have heard of "the pot calling the kettle black," right? It means your guilty of doing the same thing you accuse others of doing. In this case it would be "re-phrasing and distorting [other's] statements for rhetorical purposes."

And Neal, you are a bad person. Unless of course you're being sarcastic too. I never can tell on these damn things.

Posted by: The Pope of Chili Town at July 14, 2005 10:24 PM

See, there's a little thing I like to call "Occam's Razor." It says that whenever there are multiple posited explanations for a given event, the simplest one is usually right. In this case, our explanations are:
1. Arab millitants used violence as a way to put pressure on the UK gov't to pull out of Iraq, much in the same way pressure was put on the gov't of Spain a while ago (remember that?)
2. The Israelis, or the Freemasons, or the Bavarian Illuminati, or some other group, with far less clear objectives, blew these people up in order to advance their own shadowy goals.

I'd say the Razor clearly favors explanation 1.

On the other hand, there's always Raimondo's Razor, named after Justin "The Italian Stallion" Raimondo, which would favor the 2nd explanation.

-sam

Posted by: sam at July 15, 2005 12:11 AM

Frank, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the whole paymaster thing tends to lead to some really strange places. Maybe not as strange as Blair's secret Masonic ritual sacrifice coven under the City of London (bah, they got nothin' on Bohemian Grove), but the paymaster trail for 9/11, for example, brings up an odd cast of characters like the Pakistani ISI (this is perhaps what Daniel Pearl was getting too close to) and the Saudi royals. While both of those can probably bear the mantle of "Islamic extremists" in a sense, they're really not representative of the man on the street's idea of Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Wes at July 15, 2005 12:19 AM

Look at how he dances around the pig question.

HEY AMRAYA COLLEGE BOY! DO YOU THINK JEWS ARE DESCENDED FROM PIGS?

Answer me or I will attack your emotions with a) mindpunches and b) mindkicks.

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 15, 2005 06:05 AM


just a clarification here -- when AU says that palestinian suicide bombers "Palestinian groups have not attacked civilians in nations that are not a party to the war...etc." he (or she?) is re-affirming the pali "theory" that there are no israeli civilians. that goes for grandma, junior and the bar mitzvah boy. the thinking being that, since the mother of the most recent18-year-old "martyr" wishes and hopes that their 14-year-old will follow in their brother's footsteps, a corresponding israeli mom will believe the same, regardless of the fact that said 18-year-old "martyr" has been fed the whole "jews descending from pigs" thing since birth. effective tactic, as it manages to give a large group of people a common dehumanized enemy.

now if you'll excuse me, my matzoh is almost out of the oven. it's time to add the blood of egyptians.

l

Posted by: lefty at July 15, 2005 06:18 AM

Melody,

How can people be descended from pigs?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 15, 2005 06:45 AM

Wes, I agree with you there (about the Islamist terror chain leading to strange places.) I'm not sure I know what the "man on the street's idea of al Qaeda" is, but I don't think it's a big secret that the Saudis and the ISI have played a role in this story. (In the case of the Saudis, a huge, glaringly obvious, role.) I'm certainly not arguing that the situation isn't complex, or that everything about it is completely plain and easily understood, if that's what you think. I don't think the ethos and analysis embodied in the cited article is in any way comparable to what (I imagine) you're talking about.

There's a fringe of people who, for reasons of their own, perhaps malicious, or perhaps merely deluded, like to promulgate the idea that 9/11 may have been a Jewish plot. And there are those who, while not really believing it literally, still for some reason enjoy hearing it promulgated. An old, old story, really. Sometimes they use euphemisms and choose their words carefully in order to make it sound more reasonable, less antisemitic, less crazy. Even euphemized, it still sounds crazy to me, but some seem to go for it. I find it very strange, and repellent, though watching the process in action can also be amusing in a way. But the bottom line is, there is such a thing as Islamism, there are Islamist extremists, and they have launched attacks on the West, of which 9/11 was one. I can't think why anyone would desire to obfuscate this, but there are those who do.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 15, 2005 02:59 PM

Let me get this straight.

The notion that Western or Israeli intelligence agencies have possibly "played a role in this story" is malicious and delusional.

But the notion that Pakistani or Saudi (i.e., any Muslim) country is part of the grand conspiracy is completely obvious.

Looks like your beef is not with conspiracy theories in general.

It's with conspiracy theories implicating people you view as being on "your" side.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 15, 2005 04:29 PM

How can humans be descended from pigs? The same way humans can be descended from apes, I suppose. Or do you not believe in evolution? You still haven't answered the question, though. And now I have two questions:

DO YOU THINK JEWS ARE DESCENDED FROM PIGS? YES OR NO.

DO YOU THINK BLACKS WERE DESCENDED FROM APES? YES OR NO.

Only by answering these questions will I be able to gauge your credibility level. Answer correctly, and you shall have found a new convert to your school of thought. Answer incorrectly, and be forever shunned by my pectoral muscles and warm embrace.

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 15, 2005 04:39 PM

Melody, I think I get the point you're trying to make, but you're starting to creep me out...

Posted by: Dr. Frank at July 15, 2005 04:56 PM

Cool. I got a tattoo on my stomach that says "Creepin' people out and harshin' mellows since 1976"

No, wait.

That one is on my back. The one on my belly says, "BROADS PAY DOUBLE" in old english lettering.

No matter what his answer is, I of course think 9/11 and 7/7 were days of terror instilled by Islamic zealots. And while I'm not an anti-semite or racist against anyone, I do think Italians were descended from alligators.

Posted by: melody chest at July 15, 2005 05:47 PM

DO YOU THINK JEWS ARE DESCENDED FROM PIGS? YES OR NO.

DO YOU THINK BLACKS WERE DESCENDED FROM APES? YES OR NO.

1. No.

2. Depends on what you mean by "descended from" and "apes." Biological history is not my forte, but my understanding is that all humans (including blacks, and me, and you) are related to a predecessor ape-like species.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at July 16, 2005 02:26 AM

Yes it help immensely. Thank you!

Personally, I don't believe the world even existed before 1976, the year I was born. I put it all together after watching The Truman Show starring Jim Carrey, which you guys obviously intended to be an eye-opener for me. I hope I have been keeping you entertained even though I know it's all a big ruse.

So many things about world history that you people have tried to "teach me" is so obviously illogical and bogus, I'm surprised I didn't figure it out earlier. Like when the Pilgrims stole America from the dinosaurs - they didn't even have machine guns back then! Come on, you expect me to believe we wiped out the dinosaurs with smallpox and a few muskets?

Posted by: Melody Chest at July 16, 2005 03:06 AM