Wet ops: real or imagined?

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
I am always curious (considering the Soviet tactics) if any US agencies simply stage "random violence" to further this or that goal. I keep wondering if we will end up with some "hetherto lawful VT dweller taking out fifty people with a legally registered M60" or some such grotesque headline. Quite a few folks claim that the Port Arthur mess was such a wet op.

Oleg
 
Until Bill Clinton I would've thought anyone who could imagine such a thing to be paranoid, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that Bill and his minions wouldn't do to gain more power.
 
It's not the first thing I think of. But OTOH, I been around human behavior long enough that I don't automatically discount the idea either.

------------------
Jim Fox
 
What would you call giving a particular segment of our society syphillis?

How about nuking American soldiers in the desert?

Or using mind altering drugs on American soldiers?

And of recent, the Gulf war syndrome.

These are a few of the things we know about, only God and those who would do such things know the whole truth.

The media, and television in particular
have been a suttle means by which a society
have been altered to a point of great vulnerability.

Waterdog
 
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

"Maybe you're not paranoid, maybe you just know things everyone else doesn't..."

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
The moderator will close this soon.

Wet Ops, you betcha, Oleg...I'm not 100% confindant that certain instances were planned, but it wouldn't surprise me if all or many of them were. Our government doesn't care about children, America, Mom, or apple pie...it cares about it's growing dictatorship. I'm sure you've seen it all before.
 
Oleg is a moderator.

How about given LSD to civilians in bars?
Didn't that happen.

Doing the Waco raid in a manner set up for maximum publicity is perilously close to
the problem.

Whether the highest ranks of government would plan a randome shooting might be a little off the wall but:

It is well known that you get fire fighters who start blazes and then try to be heroes.

I wouldn't be surprised in you might get some lower level folks who misinterpret higher order mandates to fight crime and might stage something.

But there would have to be a fall guy to catch. Heavy investigation would reveal the ties and plots pretty easily.

So, to conclude, someone doing a massacre for the governmental cause - don't think so.

Someone exacerbating a situation to look macho and setting up folk like Waco, sure.
 
From this long distance, without going into detail, Port Arthur looks MIGHTY suspicious.

These may not be fonts of credibility, but check out:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm
http://www.webaxs.net/~noel/portarth.htm
http://www.sightings.com/ufo5/port.htm
http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/local/h-pages/pro-freedom/port_arthur.html

Put "Port Arthur Massacre" in the search engine Google and you will bring up some interesting stuff. Haven't tried Dunblane Massacre (UK) yet, but I would imagine something of the same.
 
In addition, how about irradiating pregnant mothers to test the affects on the fetus? (Happened at my alma mater of Vanderbilt, among other places).

Giving a 12 year old with leukemia does of radiation far in excess of lethal levels in the guise of "medical treatment" in order to find out how much soldiers could take? (Oak Ridge, TN).

Writing American POWs in Vietnam as KIA when you know that at least 200 are still alive and being held (thank you, Nixon).

Ignoring the fact that the Soviets had taken American POWs from Korea and Vietnam to gulags for interrogation (thank you, everyone from Eisenhower to Nixon).

Convincing jews who had fled from Nazi Germany to keep their collective mouth shut concerning the concentration camps as it would stir up sentiment to get involved (thank you, FDR).

Having the attitude that killing civilians and employees is the cost of doing business (the federal agency where I work).

Wet ops have happened and will continue to happen. Governments (including ours) don't care about people. They only care about keeping themselves in power and seizing more power.
 
Hmmm...

So two months ago, a 'controlled burn' was started, even after the system was deemed 'extreme fire danger', right next to the Nuke
Research Center at Los Alamos. Coincidentially, Los Alamos was (is) having severe security problems? Wet op on our side?



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Many eminent historians believe FDR had credible indications from multiple sources that the Japanese would attack widely throughout the Pacific in December 1941. Please remember that the Philippines, the Malay Peninsula, French Indo-China, Wake, Guam, etc. -- as well as Pearl Harbor -- were all simultaneously attacked on 7/8 December. Yet, FDR did nothing to prevent this attack because he:
> Wanted the United States to become the major World War II combatant, and
> Recognized that only significant loss of American lives would compel the nation to accept its role as the primary anti-Fascist power.

World-Class, political leaders are driven by ego and a lust for power. Their arrogance frequently (perhaps, almost always) subverts their integrity and fundamental character. They become victims of expedience -- "the means justifies the ends" approach -- because they want to:
> Secure their place in history (long-term fame), and
> Ensure their political legacy (my way is the only way).

Under these circumstances, is it surprising that political leaders will endorse immoral acts to achieve their ego-driven goals?
 
Let's see, some other things they don't admit too, but have film footage to prove, the h-bomb tests, be real here, all the manned ships were way too close. No one thought about the water being irradiated(please give me a brake. Do you really believe that all these scientists that developed these bombs, would forget that. They were afraid during the first tests of the atomic bomb they might start fire to the atmosphere.) The kids they fed radiocative milk to.
The patriot missles during the persian gulf war. They missed more than they hit, but were given a perfect kill rating to the public. Just glorified navy anti aircraft missles. The list goes on. The government lies and does stuff we will never be aware of.
 
It'd be a lot easier to have public support for your agenda by using situations such as that to boost public approval. It could be the difference between revolt / resistance and submission, and that fact alone makes it a very distinct possibility.
 
Frontsight! = This discussion is kosher as it is discussing a possible government activity... Not the act of Criminals.
The problem is where those lines blurr!!!!!
Things like this are judgement calls... No hard rules - so you got to go by feel.
 
Most of the possibilities cited above require a lot of collaborators and co-conspirators. They would require a lot of detailed advance planning and (un)scrupulous care after the event to keep the tales from unraveling.

People are that evil. But are they that bright? I doubt it.

pax

"In fact, one thing that I have noticed is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid." -- Brian E. Moore
 
The reasons I am curious are:

"German civilians massacgred by Czech armored cars" headlines in 1938, a little Christmas 1979 butchery in Afghanistan by Soviets, some peculiar asassinations in US 1968, all of which were used as pretexts for invasion or oppressive laws.
 
I'm surprised no one brought these two up: In the 1960's, the government created LSD to be a "truth sruem(sp)" and tested it on our soldiers (oh, that was brought up by Waterdog) and the STD experiments on Blacks. As for the Military, they have always been subjected to "new" methods of bio. warfare or forest (growth) warfare. No, I don't think we're paranoid, I think we read, learn, think too much for others. This makes us a threat and to hear it from the government, they will put us in jail, insane facility, or kill us for our own good. As someone once said, "to be ignorant is bliss, to be knowledgeable is a curse" or words that affect.

USP45usp
 
Let's not even think of the reasonings behind dumping 70+ cruise missles on a "pharmaceutecal factory" or empty "terrorist camp. Not to mention the Kosovo fiasco.

Just because the timing was coincidental to nasty news breaking re The Prez .... nah, that'd mean he wasted some of our best weapons for nothing AND killed many, many people just to "wag the dog?"

While on the thread, seems soon after HCI (or some scum) came out with the "assault weapon" tag, we got the Stockton, CA shooting
& hey presto!, with an AW. Billy Boy wants his expanded anti-terrorist bill & OK fed bldg blows & it sails on through (but, of course).

We could go on & on & on with "timely" examples of "things happening" fortuitously - just in time for proposed legislation & just enough of a push to let 'em sail on through.

Wet work? Nope. Not here. That's agin the law.

Not in America, folks.
 
I wouldn't put a thing past any government. I only question, like Pax, whether people are smart enough or dedicated enough to do the particular act alleged. Unlike Pax, though, I think some of these things would require less planning and less conspiracy than many people think.

Take JFK's death, for example. I am NOT saying I believe Oswald didn't act alone. I don't know either way, but I think either way is plausible. Simply put, much of the coverup could be the result of people who don't know the whole story, only one or two troubling bits of information, who bury their little tidbits in order to cover their own behinds or, later, in fear of rocking the boat. Let this coverup of facts that are troubling individually but not compelling without the whole continue long enough, and eventually anyone who brings some of them forward without the whole will be labeled paranoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top