Conspiracy and other sinister theories (absurdity not excluded)

Once there is some semblance of disclosure (including the JFK assassination), we are highly unlikely to have any “conspiracy theories”. More often, the opposite is true. There is a common practice of inventing a lie #8 to cover up a lie #7. At that point people start asking unpleasant questions and our Constitution entitles us all to hold our officials accountable (beyond the sanctions which only the Congress can impose, such as impeachment).

Without employing all the sinister views, we are often forced into speculation (whenever there is a lack of a reasonable disclosure) and thereby, we have step into the minefield of “conspiracy theorists”.

Yes, it is reasonably easy to conclude that the “conspiracy theories” are built on weak links – but that is only because the essential foundation of the truthful information has escaped us.

Put it this way:
ACT ONE:
1. President ABC openly states that there are threats to the US interest and security from Lower Umpahland, overseas.
2. President Nqone Momdeku states that no foreign threat will divert them from ivory trade.
ACT TWO:
3. President ABC announces Momdeku’s “non-compliance”.
4. Congress is caught off-guard
ACT THREE:
5. Our marines are landing on the shores of Lower Umpahland.
6. The outcry at home is tons of yellow ribbons proclaiming “we support our Marines” – as if there is a choice in the matter.

Many events around the world could be directed along the above three act farce, and it doesn’t take a cabinet full of lawyers, generals and other high ranking officials to come up with “a probable cause” as improbable as it sounds.

Even our every day Penal Code requires a probable cause before it employs the Law enforcement agencies or issues wire-tap orders.

It’s only common sense that the false math (facts that don’t add up) are examined by a human mind and eventually somebody uncovers something (Woodward/Bernstein did substantially so during the Watergate affair).

I have been following this “Kosovo nightmare” where I noticed how the New York Times compromised the little bit of journalistic integrity left to them, and obviously sided with one party to the conflict with absolute disregard for the truth. As brutal as this sounds, it was an easy conclusion to get. The NYT actually praised a suspected criminal for (possibly having) reduced the number of criminal acts.

Since when is it a standard of justice to award criminals for non-committal of the crimes? It’s that simple. In my yesterday’s write-up I proposed we award Osama for all the bridges that he HAS NOT blown up. If that makes sense, I must really be the Queen of England, without even knowing it.

Hence, in their attempt to support the poor logic (or absolute lack thereof) the powers who are most guilty seek to marginalize and alienate dissenters, making them look ridiculous and vulgarizing the issues at hand. That strategy never worked nor it ever will.

In yesterday’s New York Times there were two (not one, but TWO) atrocious misrepresentations (outright lies).

1. Issue of Kosovo’s drive for independence which would award legitimacy to a region of Serbia proper to the extremely well developed network of white slavery, drug trafficking, even the KLA (once of the Department of State’s list of terrorists). How did we bridge such a gap from terrorists to allies? That fast? I don’t buy it. The New York Times does not find a single flaw with Kosovo’s illegitimate activities. Surprise, surprise.

2. The character of Ramush Haradinaj who through no fault of his own managed to have more than a third of his witnesses die “suddenly”, disappear, change their mind, etc. while the Hague Tribunal hardly bats an eye. That same Haradinaj was the most prominent leader of the KLA (while it was on the list of terrorist organizations published by our department of state). From a suspected druglord and criminal to an ally? That fast? I don’t buy that either. The New York Times article seems to have “omitted” a considerable chunk of this man’s past, while having credited him for putting an end to violent outbursts during the visit of Serbian President Boris Tadic to his own province of Kosovo. That’s about as powerful as me telling a New Yorker that s/he may continue to reside in Lower Manhattan.

3. You’re wrong if you thought that was the extent of “brilliant journalism”. There is also (in yesterday’s New York Times) an article about Serbia (as a country) found not guilty for the death of the 8000 Srebrenica civilians. I know that muslim propaganda has spent considerable efforts and money to have this number increased way out of proportions (more accurate numbers range from 138, 158, 650 or even 800 – but there is one zero too many in that NYT published article – without ever mentioning that the number of the Serbian caused deaths was in dispute from day 1.

Now we can come back again to the 3 act farce and try to predict what events will the following act discover. We know for a fact that New York Times will NOT be a trustworthy source one way or another.