[RawGod]

(09-02-2014 03:31 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I used to argue with conspiracy theorists on other internet forums. It's impossible. Conflicting evidence just makes them believe harder.

It's a shame that they're less critical about their source material, since the crazy shit on Gary Webb seems somewhat plausible.

So you're against all conspiracy theories? That's as irrational as being for all conspiracy theories. Each one has to evaluated on its own merits.

That seems to be as hard a position to take as "I don't know", but those two approaches are the most intellectually honest ones.

As far as the list in the OP goes, they are for the most part simply statements of events on the public record which are not even argued against, just ignored. For example, no one doubts NATO cooperation in false flag bombings in Europe (Operation Gladio) or the James Bond weaponry put on the public record in the Church Committee CIA hearings.

Once you study just what is on the record about the activity of the Western security/intelligence forces in the 50s to the 70s (they got a lot better at keeping things secret after the Church Committee) then you realise that their capability to mold the narrative and do all kinds of outrageous things was (and presumably, still is) off the charts.

The personal result of my study - a lot of uncertainty regarding specific events. But zero trust in the narrative served up by media and government.