There Is No Such Thing As A Conspiracy

We know that there is no such thing as a government conspiracy, because the IRS was not targeting conservative groups – and they found lots of WMDs in Iraq.

Watergate did not happen, and that Gulf of Tonkin attack was totally real.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to There Is No Such Thing As A Conspiracy

  1. _Jim says:

    “A Person Is Smart, People Are Dumb … panicky …” MIB

    • Robertv says:

      Behind all terrorist organisations you’ll find a government. Normal people are just trying to make a living. They don’t have the time nor the money to be a terrorist. Follow the yellow brick road.

  2. I love it when alarmists say: “skeptics are nothing but conspiracy theorists funded by big oil** ”

    They just don’t get the hypocrisy of it.

    **But not Russian Oil

  3. tom0mason says:

    “There is no conspiracy.” Oliver North?

    • _Jim says:

      When the orders flow from the top, strictly speaking, that is not a conspiracy.

      Or, acting on one’s own initiative; no conspiracy here either.

      • tom0mason says:

        Agreed Jim, I was trying to recall who it was, during the long running Iran/contra investigations, said that there was no conspiracy.
        But as you say if the orders were from higher-up then it’s really a conspiracy.

  4. Okie says:

    Thank heavens the WMDs story in Iraq was disproven. Otherwise, I might believe the recent story that ISIS seized an Iraqi chemical weapons factory at Al Muthanna that produced mustard gas, sarin and VX.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I see what you did there.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Otherwise, I might believe the recent story that ISIS seized an Iraqi chemical weapons factory at Al Muthanna that produced mustard gas, sarin and VX.”

      When you say “seized an Iraqi chemical weapons factory”, do you mean that they “seized a factory that produced chemical weapons in the past under Hussein”? If so, then OK, I don’t think anyone disputes that Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. On the other hand, do you mean that they seized a working factory still capable of producing such weapons?

      The Devil is in the details… If I bought a home in Hiroshima, would it be true to say that “Jason Calley recently acquired a site that was used as a nuclear weapons testing facility.”?

      • _Jim says:

        I don’t think that was exactly a test, Jason. The devil IS in the details.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Jim! (By the way… do you notice that I always try to spell your name right, with the space in front?) Well, it didn’t seem like a test to the folk on the ground — but it really WAS a test! The first test bomb at Trinty was in implosion device. It worked. The bomb at Nagasaki (number three) was also an implosion device, like at Trinity. Strangely enough, the second bomb, the one at Hiroshima was an untested gun-type. The scientists were pretty sure it would work, but that design had never been tried. It really was a test. Obviously, it worked.

        • There was no reason to believe the U-235 bomb wouldn’t work It was a very simple design.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Jason Calley June 24, 2014 at 6:01 pm

          Strange (pronounced in the best Donald Trump impression).

          Examining the areas afterwards the damage looked more ‘explosion’ than implosion; this brings us to a crossroads once again in our meeting like this: “Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?”

          I think you may still be young enough and also probably working outside an applied-science field (e.g. hardware engineering vs something like only working on bits and computer graphics) and therefore would not understand the risk in going with untested hardware and/or concepts on the battle field, especially one as secret and as ‘new’ as these were.


        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Steven! Yes, in fact the gun-type is much simpler than the implosion type. But the point I was aiming for, was not so much about bomb types as about the ambiguity of language. Was it a bomb “test”? Yeah — but that is such a narrow description that it deceives by virtue of its lack of details. When the MSM gives us the news, it will describe something as a “chemical weapons factory” without telling us whether the factory was functional or is functional. If it produces chlorine gas, is it a chemical weapons factory? Or is it a water treatment factory? If it produces insecticides, is it an agricultural factory, or a nerve-agent factory?

          The answer is yes, those things can be described either way, just as a bomb attack is a bomb test. The point is, without some very pertinent details, almost everything the MSM gives us is propaganda; we trust their stories at our own peril!

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Jim! With all due respect, I think that you may be poorly informed on the subject of early fission weapons design.

        • _Jim says:

          Jason, you give me the impression of someone who does not have as wide a range of experience as some on this board … so please forgive when I spot a divergence from known reality to some of the ‘milder’ conspiracy theories and your ‘wilder’ take on things.

          I am thinking now your reference to ‘explosion’ and ‘implosion’ refer to the method used to bring the two (effective) halves of a critical mass together with great rapidity for the occurrence of the main event, but, you have not been specific up to this point and thereby look wild-eyed in making such assertions sans any sort of cite or posted references. I can’t read your mind; I am only human.


        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Jim! No offense taken, and none meant. If our paths ever cross I will buy you a beverage of your choice. 🙂

        • _Jim says:

          Cheers. Have a drink on me …

      • cdquarles says:

        This story is a bit muddled, but I remember from documents posted for crowd sourced translation in near real time a decade ago showed active at the time WMD programs and infrastructure to match, to wit, at least two 400,000 square foot bunkers underground inside the facility mentioned in the stories recently. Some of that stuff got moved out (they had plenty of time to do it before the resumption of the war (ceasefire agreements repeatedly violated). Some of it never existed (typical for bureaucratic systems) in real life but did exist on paper. Some of it was dual/multiple use items where disclosure had been lacking or untruthful or both.

        Still, WMD and the programs to make it were found. Large stockpiles were not but facilities to make and store them were also found. The site mentioned this week is still undergoing inspection and parts of it were locked and guarded for most of the last decade.

        • thostids says:

          If the US or Brits had found anything that even remotely resembled a WMD or the immediate means of making them, we would have been told very loudly! As it was, it was an excuse. As for the Oxford Boat Crew (Isis) having taken the factory that Saddam had made his non-existent WMD with, as well as a “capped” stash of Sarin etc well, d’yer know that is just plain hokum. Pulease, we go all the bloody way there and leave a convenient stash of top-of-the-range nerve agent killer just laying around for some murderous Jihadist Terrorists to pick up.
          Aw come on, fellas. You really have to do a lot better than that.

        • kuhnkat says:

          CD, the facility ISIS just overran does have large amounts. 15000 litres of sarin is a large amount. Half that is a large amount.

          The confusion I see above is whether the plant was still functional when the war started or whether it had been shutdown years before. Either way there was a large stockpile of chemicals and completed WMD there along with munitions for delivery. REALLY makes you wonder how much got moved out as claimed by the Iraqi Air Force General. I am also one of THOSE who believe the armed convoys were NOT taking Sodam Insane and friends household goods to Syria.

          “Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment, said that al-Muthanna has large stores of weaponized and bulk mustard gas and sarin, most of which has been put beyond ready use in concrete stores.”

          From the same article:

          “US officials revealed that the group had occupied the sprawling site which has two bunkers encased in a concrete seal. Much of the sarin is believed to be redundant.”

          Redundant?? Weasel words. Either it has degraded or not. Redundant??

          Seems there was a lot of dancing by the CIA to cover the fact that Bush was right and even after Sodam got rid of a lot of his WMD there was still a substantial amount in country that was NOT publicized by the media.

          I will pass on whether any of it is still useful as weapons to ISIS. It would seem that at the best it would be much reduced in potency after this time period.

      • squid2112 says:

        @Jason Calley,

        As I understand it Jason, the factory was not operational at this time, however, it does contain many chemical and biological weapons AT THIS TIME. Which isn’t really difficult to figure out that Saddam HAD WMD’s, not just at this facility, but all the chem weapons that were moved to Syria, which Asad used on his own people. There is strong evidence that those particular chem weapons originated in Iraq, with Saddam. So, it is looking more and more like the inconvenient fact that Saddam DID indeed have WMD’s. Incidentally, on another blog, I had some idiot trying to convince people that chemical and biological weapons are not considered “WMD’s”, obviously bothered by the suggest that the Bush administration may have been correct after all. Typicall … seems nobody can handle truth anymore.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Thanks, squid, for the feedback! It is difficult to know what information is true, what is false and (most confusing of all for me) what is accurate but misleading!

        • squid2112 says:

          Yeah, you got that right … doesn’t help when the people we place in office do nothing but lie to us. When it comes to the Iraq thing, one could argue whether or not we should have gone there, and there are pretty of good arguments on both sides of that fence. But I really think there is little doubt that Saddam had plenty of so-called WMD’s. Was that a good reason to invade Iraq? I dunno. I used to think perhaps it was. In light of everything that has transpired over the years, I’m not so sure. Anymore, I am of the mindset that we should just “nuke the site from space” and be done with it all. Seems to me the entire world is spinning out of control. At some point, something gotta give.

  5. Dave in Ann Arbor says:

    The state is pretty much nothing but a vast criminal conspiracy.

  6. They did find WMD in Iraq, just not all at once. One find was 600 tons of yellowcake. Syria made use of some of Saddam’s chemical weapons recently.

    • kuhnkat says:

      There was also 1.5-2 tons of low level enriched uranium at the same site, the mothballed nuke development facility. I personally liked how the crowd sourcing for translating the the large number of documents was shut down.

      “But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. ”

  7. thostids says:

    This was the same yellowcake that a rogue African State sold him? What, exactly, was he going to do with it? It doesn’t just magic itself into Nuclear grade Uranium.
    Go on. He was going to make it into errr……

    • kuhnkat says:


      No, it was NOT the yellowcake Bush said they TRIED to buy in Africa!!! You, Plam, her Ambassador hubby, and the media should try and get things straight occasionally.

      What was he going to do with it?? If you read my lower post you will know that he had plans to build a nuke. He also had a secret enrichment program that would have given him enough highly enriched uranium to build bombs.

  8. When 500 Conservative groups are held up … but just 6 or so Progressive ones… stir in Lois Lerner admitting it… and clearly we have a Conspiracy…

    Progressives cannot nor will they ever admit this…

    • Realist says:

      Couldn’t be that with the newly formed Tea Party movement and its spinoffs that there were more “conservative” groups looking for 501C3 status then Progressives. Most things aren’t conspiratorial in nature even when you “feel” like they are.

      • _Jim says:

        Is it normal for congressman and women to conspire -er- collaborate together and focus the IRS on these new groups?

        You do know that e-mails exist from democrat congressman to the IRS expressing the desire that these groups need to be investigated? Why are partisans involving themselves in what should be a neutral evaluation of such groups?

        Do articles detailing democrat congressional pressure to investigate Tea Party groups make their way onto DU, DKos, HuffPo or ThinkRegress websites?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s