NZ attack already being labelled a "false flag" by conspiracy theorists

Dohnjoe

I see usual conspiracy forums have lit up. Apparently he was a Mossad agent, or he was part of a ploy to get weapons banned in NZ, or a "false flag" to turn the public on white nationalists

Every major attack or shooting in the last 15 years, it never changes. Individuals start with the notion it's a "conspiracy", assume a motive, go to group validation conspiracy sites, start collecting "anomalies" and "things that just don't make sense" about the event, that becomes evidence for whatever conspiracy

Ipso

I see a lot of mental gymnastics in the near future; false flag to discredit white supremacists but still an excuse to talk about immigration.

Charles Ingles

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

No one said that people can't "question" it.
By the same token, rational people should be able to point out people who do claim that this and other mass shootings are fake are rather silly, gullible or outright disgusting.

If those people don't like people pointing out those things, there are plenty of safe spaces out there for them.

Ipso

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

They’re not questioning an official narrative, it’s now the default response to label something a false flag within hours of something happening and those people being nowhere near the event.
Prior false flags were supposed to remove out liberties, but yet they keep happening. The sooner conspiracy theorists are labelled mentally compromised or being part of a cult the better.

Charles Ingles

King Mob wrote: »

No one said that people can't "question" it.
By the same token, rational people should be able to point out people who do claim that this and other mass shootings are fake are rather silly, gullible or outright disgusting.

If those people don't like people pointing out those things, there are plenty of safe spaces out there for them.

Well I might disagree with them but no need to call them silly or any other names.
Some conpricy theories can be quite convincing.
No need to shut down debate with insults as for the more wacky theories a lot of them are just trolling best ignored

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well I might disagree with them but no need to call them silly or any other names.
Some conpricy theories can be quite convincing.
No need to shut down debate with insults as for the more wacky theories a lot of them are just trolling best ignored

Well if you believe that a mass shooting is faked, then yea, you're either a bit silly or you're gullible.
Or they are a type like Alex Jones and his ilk, who try to harass victims and the families of victims.
Disgusting is putting it mildly.

Again, if these insults hurt the feelings of people who buy into these silly silly theories, there's plenty of places they can go where no one will question their beliefs.

These people aren't interested in debate. They've already decided it's a conspiracy before and in spite of any evidence.

Charles Ingles

King Mob wrote: »

Well if you believe that a mass shooting is faked, then yea, you're either a bit silly or you're gullible.
Or they are a type like Alex Jones and his ilk, who try to harass victims and the families of victims.
Disgusting is putting it mildly.

Again, if these insults hurt the feelings of people who buy into these silly silly theories, there's plenty of places they can go where no one will question their beliefs.

These people aren't interested in debate. They've already decided it's a conspiracy before and in spite of any evidence.

My point was you seem to so fixed to your own opinion you seek out echo chambers just like the conspiracy heads do.
It fine to question anybody's point of view but let's all be a bit kinder and more reasonable we might get somewhere.
As for conspiracy theory the best one I've heard is Alex Jones is actually Bill Hicks lots of evidence to prove it.
Would be gas if true

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It fine to question anybody's point of view but let's all be a bit kinder and more reasonable we might get somewhere.

But why should we be kind and coddle people who believe obvious nonsense?
Should we pretend that their theories aren't based on either general silliness or deliberate deception?
Should we just ignore the general defending and excusing white supremacy?

I'm fixed on my opinion on this in the same way that I'm fixed on my opinion of the existance of gravity.
You need a lot of good evidence to change my mind.
Youtube videos about how a national tragedy is actually a plot to discredit white supremacy is not worthy of consideration or respect.

Overheal

You feed people too much bull**** and then they go and try to shoot up a pizza parlor with a nonexistent basement.

But no I was not surprised to see Rush Limbaugh peddling this nonsense.

The Nal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

As for conspiracy theory the best one I've heard is Alex Jones is actually Bill Hicks lots of evidence to prove it.
Would be gas if true

Is that really the best conspiracy theory youve ever heard?

Cheerful Spring

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

You just highlighted here you don't believe it was a false flag. This went over there heads- normal behaviour on this forum welcome to the madness

Ipso

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just highlighted here you don't believe it was a false flag. This went over there heads- normal behaviour on this forum welcome to the madness

He was being critiicised because he said that people who believe in false flags straight away and for prlonged periods of time without evidence should be even considered for a normal debate.

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

He was being critiicised because he said that people who believe in false flags straight away and for prlonged periods of time without evidence should be even considered for a normal debate.

Where I don't see this post?

Charles Ingles

Ipso wrote: »

He was being critiicised because he said that people who believe in false flags straight away and for prlonged periods of time without evidence should be even considered for a normal debate.

I never said that

Ipso

It fine to question anybody's point of view but let's all be a bit kinder and more reasonable we might get somewhere.

The Nal

The conspiracy loons were shouting false flag within an hour of the shooting. Claiming the video shows vanishing cartridges.

Something very very wrong with these people.

Ipso

There was a civilian who took on the gun man, has he been accused of being part of it, yet?

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

The conspiracy loons were shouting false flag within an hour of the shooting. Claiming the video shows vanishing cartridges.

Something very very wrong with these people.

It was the same with the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Aurora shooting, Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks, Belgian attacks, London attacks, Las Vegas shooting (and those were just the ones I followed)

Identical in fact, same faulty reasoning each time with amateur internet detectives feverishly working to find "weird" and "unbelievable" stuff so they could point to some vague conspiracy

cursai

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

Give an example to justify this statement.

Jerichoholic

They usually say it's something to do with the date, some sort of symbolism related to the occult. Has anyone mentioned that?

Charles Ingles

cursai wrote: »

Give an example to justify this statement.

What statement

Cheerful Spring

Charles Ingles wrote: »

What statement

They're don't know, mate.;)

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They're don't know, mate.;)

batgoat

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Debate and open discussion can only be a good thing.
People are entitled to question the official narrative we have been lied to before.
That said I don't think for a second NZ was a false flag

Thing is these conspiracies invariably target the victims of the attacks. That's not a good thing and in the likes of Sandy Hook it became awful for those families. This American Life covered the area in a recent episode. Can you explain how it's a good thing to terrorise families of spree shooting victims? That's what that sort of questioning of the narrative consists of.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/670/beware-the-jabberwock

Franz Von Peppercorn

King Mob wrote: »

No one said that people can't "question" it.
By the same token, rational people should be able to point out people who do claim that this and other mass shootings are fake are rather silly, gullible or outright disgusting.

If those people don't like people pointing out those things, there are plenty of safe spaces out there for them.

Anti false flag posters started the discussion. There seems to be more believers in these forums that false flags never happen than the opposite, a strange position for a conspiracy forum.

Dohnjoe

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anti false flag posters started the discussion.

What's an anti false flag poster?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What's an anti false flag poster?

A poster who doesn’t believe in any false flags. Well those that go against western narratives. Clearly. Most arguments here are not on the actual event but generalised attacks on conspiracy theorists. However, while most theories are nuts, some may have a kernel of truth.

Also what’s the point of this forum. You and a few others who are anti all conspiracy are clearly in the majority on a forum which was no doubt designed to be a place for conspiracy theorists to hang out. A forum that is itself a ghetto.

The very existence of any narrative that isn’t the established narrative enrages some.

The Nal

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

A poster who doesn’t believe in any false flags. Well those that go against western narratives. Clearly. Most arguments here are not on the actual event but generalised attacks on conspiracy theorists. However, while most theories are nuts, some may have a kernel of truth.

Also what’s the point of this forum. You and a few others who are anti all conspiracy are clearly in the majority on a forum which was no doubt designed to be a place for conspiracy theorists to hang out. A forum that is itself a ghetto.

The very existence of any narrative that isn’t the established narrative enrages some.

Assuming something is a false flag within minutes of the event without any evidence is complete insanity.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There seems to be more believers in these forums that false flags never happen than the opposite,

Who has stated this?

Does not believing in the notion that the government hires actors to pretend to be victims of a fake shooting mean that we don't believe that false flags aren't a thing?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

However, while most theories are nuts, some may have a kernel of truth.

Which theories are nuts and which ones have a kernel of truth?
How do we tell the difference?
What is the kernel of truth behind the notion that the New Zealand attack was staged?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Also what’s the point of this forum. You and a few others who are anti all conspiracy are clearly in the majority on a forum which was no doubt designed to be a place for conspiracy theorists to hang out. A forum that is itself a ghetto.

Plenty of safe spaces out there for conspiracy theorists were people won't point out problems with their theories or point out that it's a bit silly and ghoulish to decide that an attack is a false flag before the victims are cold.

Dohnjoe

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The very existence of any narrative that isn’t the established narrative enrages some.

If you are referring to falsehoods and lies, they generally tend to annoy most people. Emphasis on "most", some people seem perfectly content with anything that bolsters a strong personal belief or world view, even if it is blatantly untrue

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Which theories are nuts and which ones have a kernel of truth?
How do we tell the difference?
What is the kernel of truth behind the notion that the New Zealand attack was staged?


Plenty of safe spaces out there for conspiracy theorists were people won't point out problems with their theories or point out that it's a bit silly and ghoulish to decide that an attack is a false flag before the victims are cold.

Even the DOD ( Defence Department) in the United States and other governments around the world admit UFOs are real. We moved on from the Skeptics debunking of the subject

HSCA ( US government panel) even admitted in the 70s JFK killing was a conspiracy. ARRB (a government group) even went further and highlighted the cover-up. We pretend the Warren Commission is the final say on the matter when it's not. JFK files is also further evidence of a conspiracy. The powers that be are still covering up today. Only idiots believe Oswald acted alone.

9/11- The official narrative still believed. It's only big conspiracy left the US government still denies the conspiracy of demolitions. There some movement on who funded and planned the attacks but its a slow progress through the courts.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even the DOD ( Defence Department) in the United States and other governments around the world admit UFOs are real. We moved on from the Skeptics debunking of the subject

HSCA ( US government panel) even admitted in the 70s JFK killing was a conspiracy. ARRB (a government group) even went further and highlighted the cover-up. We pretend the Warren Commission is the final say on the matter when it's not. JFK files is also further evidence of a conspiracy. The powers that be are still covering up today. Only idiots believe Oswald acted alone.

9/11- The official narrative still believed. It's only big conspiracy left the US government still denies the conspiracy of demolitions. There some movement on who funded and planned the attacks but its a slow progress through the courts.

Aliens existing, 911 and JFK being "cover-up conspiracies" are your personal opinions, not fact

In the same way that Bigfoot existing, vaccines and climate change being "cover-up conspiracies" are the personal opinions of other individuals

They are all weak, vague theories requiring the same mental gymnastics by those who support them

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even the DOD ( Defence Department) in the United States and other governments around the world admit UFOs are real. We moved on from the Skeptics debunking of the subject

So now you believe the US government.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

HSCA ( US government panel) even admitted in the 70s JFK killing was a conspiracy.

The HSCA were proved wrong. You know they were.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ARRB (a government group) even went further and highlighted the cover-up.

Nothing in the files they released points to anyone but Oswald.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We pretend the Warren Commission is the final say on the matter when it's not.

Who does that?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

JFK files is also further evidence of a conspiracy. The powers that be are still covering up today. Only idiots believe Oswald acted alone.

Only idiots believe something with no evidence.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11- The official narrative still believed. It's only big conspiracy left the US government still denies the conspiracy of demolitions. There some movement on who funded and planned the attacks but its a slow progress through the courts.

What movements? Who funded the attacks? Was Bin Laden lying?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

So now you believe the US government.



The HSCA were proved wrong. You know they were.



Nothing in the files they released points to anyone but Oswald.



Who does that?



Only idiots believe something with no evidence.



What movements? Who funded the attacks? Was Bin Laden lying?

I believe Luiz Elizondo who headed the UFO program is credible. I don't think they ever release everything they know. Luiz Elizondo even admits this on video there other classified UFO programs that are protected and likely never be admitted to by the Pentagon. National security concerns are more important. The DOD admitted for the first time they had a UFO program. By all means, believe their fighters jets are following balloons and birds, if you want.

HSCA were not proved wrong. The FBI was involved in the cover-up in the 60s so they went out of there way to discredit the findings by the HSCA. The evidence is sound. HSCA panel even admitted after it finished the CIA lied to them and there investigation would have looked at them as co-conspirators if this new evidence was known to them at the time.

The evidence proves a conspiracy. You believe in magic bullet tricks.

9/11 families are now suing the Saudis through the courts. Obama tried to stop this, Congress overruled him. It is widely is known the 19 hijackers were funded by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and CIA black op networks. Bin laden paid for the attacks is nonsense. There is a reason Bin Laden was living in Pakistan right next to a military elite school.

Ash.J.Williams

The footage was insane, couldn't see much of an ideology. He even had a soundtrack.( Including the crazy world of Arthur brown.) laughing away promoting populist youtubers, not giving anyone a chance. Sick f**k. The only conspiracy is was.he trained and where did he train.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe Luiz Elizondo who headed the UFO program is credible. I don't think they ever release everything they know. Luiz Elizondo even admits this on video there other classified UFO programs that are protected and likely never be admitted to by the Pentagon. National security concerns are more important. The DOD admitted for the first time they had a UFO program. By all means, believe their fighters jets are following balloons and birds, if you want.

HSCA were not proved wrong. The FBI was involved in the cover-up in the 60s so they went out of there way to discredit the findings by the HSCA. The evidence is sound. HSCA panel even admitted after it finished the CIA lied to them and there investigation would have looked at them as co-conspirators if this new evidence was known to them at the time.

The evidence proves a conspiracy. You believe in magic bullet tricks.

9/11 families are now suing the Saudis through the courts. Obama tried to stop this, Congress overruled him. It is widely is known the 19 hijackers were funded by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and CIA black op networks. Bin laden paid for the attacks is nonsense. There is a reason Bin Laden was living in Pakistan right next to a military elite school.

Is thwre a single thread in your posting history where you have nanaged to stay on topic and not shoe horn your 9-11 conspiracies in?

Overheal

Keep 9/11 in the subforum, thanks.