PDA

View Full Version : Were the Manson Killings a Government Black Op?



Cosmored
01-02-2009, 12:58 PM
I'd never thought about this until I listened to this radio program.

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_op
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture#Sixties_and_seventies_countercultur e

It doesn't sound like such a far-fetched theory when we consider all the other stuff the US government has pulled off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183
video (dot) google (dot) com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183

People were figuring out that the govenment was lying to them about why they were in Vietnam. The counter-culture was thinking independently. The government was losing it's ability to form the people's political thinking. Whether it was a black op or not, the government used it to discredit the movement.

A lot of people were basing their opinions of the Vietnam war on info like this; that was a big problem for the government.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
(exerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's some stuff about how the CIA allegedly programs people to do things they normally wouldn't do and then erases their memories.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc
es (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc

http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=cia+mind+control+experiments&search_type=&aq=0&oq=cia+mind+control

Of course, I can't be sure whether this theory is true or not. I just think it's worth some serious consideration as it fits the big picture. I certainly don't rule it out.

ironhorsedriver
01-02-2009, 01:06 PM
Where's the ignore button?

signalsgt
01-02-2009, 01:30 PM
I'd never thought about this until I listened to this radio program.

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_op
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture#Sixties_and_seventies_countercultur e

It doesn't sound like such a far-fetched theory when we consider all the other stuff the US government has pulled off.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183
video (dot) google (dot) com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183

People were figuring out that the govenment was lying to them about why they were in Vietnam. The counter-culture was thinking independently. The government was losing it's ability to form the people's political thinking. Whether it was a black op or not, the government used it to discredit the movement.

A lot of people were basing their opinions of the Vietnam war on info like this; that was a big problem for the government.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When the Indochina war ended in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina". And secondly, they would have to obscure the fact that the military effort in Vietnam "was restrained by a mass movement of protest and resistance here at home which engaged in effective direct action outside the bounds of propriety long before established spokesmen proclaimed themselves to be its leaders". Where do we stand now on these two issues--seven years later?
Chomsky: As far as the opinion makers are concerned, they have been doing exactly what it was obvious they would do. Every book that comes out, every article that comes out, talks about how -- while it may have been a "mistake" or an "unwise effort" -- the United States was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. And they portray those who opposed the war as apologists for North Vietnam. That's standard to say.
The purpose is obvious: to obscure the fact that the United States did attack South Vietnam and the major war was fought against South Vietnam. The real invasion of South Vietnam which was directed largely against the rural society began directly in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. And that fact simply does not exist in official American history. There Is no such event in American history as the attack on South Vietnam. That's gone. Of course, It Is a part of real history. But it's not a part of official history.
And most of us who were opposed to the war, especially in the early 60's -- the war we were opposed to was the war on South Vietnam which destroyed South Vietnam's rural society. The South was devastated. But now anyone who opposed this atrocity is regarded as having defended North Vietnam. And that's part of the effort to present the war as if it were a war between South Vietnam and North Vietnam with the United States helping the South. Of course it's fabrication. But it's "official truth" now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
(exerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's some stuff about how the CIA allegedly programs people to do things they normally wouldn't do and then erases their memories.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc
es (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc

http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=cia+mind+control+experiments&search_type=&aq=0&oq=cia+mind+control

Of course, I can't be sure whether this theory is true or not. I just think it's worth some serious consideration as it fits the big picture. I certainly don't rule it out.

Dude. Really?

TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE KEYBOARD AND SLOWLY BACK AWAY!!!

Comso,what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Have a nice day!

:)

Cosmored
01-02-2009, 01:46 PM
Comso,what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this message board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I usually don't respond to empty rhetoric but did you even listen to the radio program?

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

Do you believe the official American version of why we were in Vietnam?

Bongo55
01-02-2009, 01:51 PM
Dude you must be the most gullible person alive...... and your also dumber than a box of rocks.

linda22003
01-02-2009, 01:57 PM
I usually don't respond to empty rhetoric

Neither do we. That's why your posts get the response they do.

signalsgt
01-02-2009, 02:16 PM
I usually don't respond to empty rhetoric but did you even listen to the radio program?

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

Do you believe the official American version of why we were in Vietnam?

Cosmo (sorry about the typo):

1. NO.

2. Don't care to hear your version.

I find it to be bad luck to humor crazy people.

:D

Cosmored
01-02-2009, 02:34 PM
I usually don't respond to empty rhetoric but did you even listen to the radio program?

NO.
The evidence is in the radio program. How can you form an opinion without first having examined the evidence? Do you realize you'd get laughed out of the debating hall for this response?

People like you are usually suffering from cognitive dissonance....

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".


Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

....or invincible ignorance.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------
invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.
------------------------------------------------------------

Forums on the internet are infested with government disinfo agents but even they don't "Usually" say such lame things.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

BSR
01-02-2009, 02:43 PM
How did you manage to stay alive this long? I mean you have the jump on every major conspiracy in the existence of man. You must have pissed off a lot of government officials. They are probably going to move in on you quickly. You need to destroy the evidence , so burn your computer immediately. act fast before it's too late.



Farewell brother. thank you for educating me...

signalsgt
01-02-2009, 02:47 PM
The evidence is in the radio program. How can you form an opinion without first having examined the evidence? Do you realize you'd get laughed out of the debating hall for this response?

People like you are usually suffering from cognitive dissonance....

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".


Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

....or invincible ignorance.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------
invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.
------------------------------------------------------------

Forums on the internet are infested with government disinfo agents but even they don't "Usually" say such lame things.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

So Cosmo are you a psychiatrist or a behavioral health specialist? Or perhaps a Psychic hotline operator?

No?

Then you are just as out there with this reply as any of your other posts.

HINT: Maybe if you didn't present yourself as an arrogant prick with the all the answers and were more willing to discuss things instead of just telling us how wrong we are...

Oh wait, then you wouldn't be a loon and we would get along fine.

Never mind, my bad.

:)

Cosmored
01-02-2009, 02:58 PM
willing to discuss things instead of just telling us how wrong we are...
I presented this as a theory. You people are the ones who are being dogmatic. Listen to the radio program and if you hear something implausible, explain why it's implausible. You people are the ones who seem unwilling to discuss it. All you do is spout empty rhetoric and invective which doesn't impress thinking people. Seriously, if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you people right now.

linda22003
01-02-2009, 02:59 PM
It's a message board, not a debating hall. We're not roaring with laughter because crazy is not entertaining. Go peddle it somewhere else.

BSR
01-02-2009, 03:00 PM
I presented this as a theory. You people are the ones who are being dogmatic. Listen to the radio program and if you hear something implausible, explain why it's implausible. You people are the ones who seem unwilling to discuss it. All you do is spout empty rhetoric and invective which doesn't impress thinking people. Seriously, if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you people right now.

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/littlestory.jpg

PoliCon
01-02-2009, 03:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

biccat
01-02-2009, 03:23 PM
I presented this as a theory. You people are the ones who are being dogmatic. Listen to the radio program and if you hear something implausible, explain why it's implausible. You people are the ones who seem unwilling to discuss it. All you do is spout empty rhetoric and invective which doesn't impress thinking people. Seriously, if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you people right now.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/manson/manson.html

There's my evidence.

Please provide something, other than speculation, that would be admissible in a court of law to defend your position that the Manson murders were committed by someone other than the Manson family.

Zathras
01-02-2009, 03:31 PM
There's a song lyric that describes our little Cosmoron perfectly..."When you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything".

Then there's this little gem he keeps spouting:


All you do is spout empty rhetoric and invective which doesn't impress thinking people

Dude, you do realise you're talking about yourself more than anyone else here with that tired, repeated line. All you're doing is wasting bandwidth here with your empty rhetoric with the thinking people here on CU. It's also the reason you keep getting banned on other websites, including here very soon if you keep it up.

Cosmored
01-02-2009, 03:40 PM
your position that the Manson murders were committed by someone other than the Manson family.
If you go back and read post #1 you'll see that my position is that it's a possibility that it was a government black operation. I didn't say I was one hundred percent sure.

How do we know that they weren't all programmed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=cia+mind+control+experiments&search_type=&aq=0&oq=cia+mind+control

There's a lot of stuff in that summary of the trial and it'll take a while to read it all. What specific part of it do you think proves they weren't programmed by the CIA or something?

All I want to do is get at the truth. If the truth is that it wasn't a government black op, that's the truth I want to get at. I won't be disappointed.

Zathras
01-02-2009, 03:51 PM
If you go back and read post #1 you'll see that my position is that it's a possibility that it was a government black operation. I didn't say I was one hundred percent sure.

How do we know that they weren't all programmed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=cia+mind+control+experiments&search_type=&aq=0&oq=cia+mind+control

There's a lot of stuff in that summary of the trial and it'll take a while to read it all. What specific part of it do you think proves they weren't programmed by the CIA or something?

All I want to do is get at the truth. If the truth is that it wasn't a government black op, that's the truth I want to get at. I won't be disappointed.

http://www.aceofbase.org/james/forumfun/smells_like_bullshit.jpg

But then again, so does everyone of your post whoring attemps

biccat
01-02-2009, 03:54 PM
If you go back and read post #1 you'll see that my position is that it's a possibility that it was a government black operation. I didn't say I was one hundred percent sure.

How do we know that they weren't all programmed?
How do we know the murders even occurred? Did you see the bodies? Were they real? Maybe the news media made up the murders, and Sharon Tate is living out the rest of her life under the pseudonym Sarah Talbott in northern Minnesota where no one will ever look for her.

If you use the lack of evidence, or super-conspiracy, as a basis for a theory, then there is no end to how far you can go. How do we know the earth is round? That the speed of light is 3e8 m/s? There could be a conspiracy among the scientific community, that the earth is really square, and the speed of light is 2e9 m/s.

But since there's no evidence to support this position, then reaching these conclusions is absurd. So unless you have evidence of brainwashing, here's no basis to suspect that they were brainwashed, by the CIA, KGB, or Khmer Rouge.


There's a lot of stuff in that summary of the trial and it'll take a while to read it all. What specific part of it do you think proves they weren't programmed by the CIA or something?
Read the transcript of Linda Kasabian, it is direct trial testimony of her own firsthand observations, and is very good evidence of what really happened.


All I want to do is get at the truth. If the truth is that it wasn't a government black op, that's the truth I want to get at. I won't be disappointed.
The truth is that it wasn't a government black op. Manson told his "family" to commit the murders, and they did. Manson really was crazy, and somehow he got a few tragically gullible individuals to follow him and do what he wanted.

Don't believe that Manson was crazy? Read his trial statement.

Edit: Also, I didn't watch much of your video, because the woman says "ek cetera." What the heck is "ek cetera"?

PoliCon
01-02-2009, 03:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GmqUqVQEA

Zathras
01-02-2009, 04:01 PM
How do we know that they weren't all programmed?

How do we know that you weren't programed by the government to discredit real CTers around the world by being an idiot? That fits perfectly with the way you've been acting here and on other websites.

PoliCon
01-02-2009, 04:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs9IZWvjhc

Sonnabend
01-02-2009, 04:48 PM
Cosmo, I would like to extend a cordial invitation for you to join me on www.hkcradio.com (http://www.hkcradio.com) on my show the Voice of the Pacific, as I am sure a lot of my listeners would absolutely love to hear what you have to say, and I am sure that you would relish the opportunity to present your ideas and far ranging theories to a receptive and willing audience.

Please contact me via private message to make arrangements.

Cosmored
01-02-2009, 05:34 PM
Don't believe that Manson was crazy? Read his trial statement.
Of course I think he was crazy. Crazy people make perfect patsies


Read the transcript of Linda Kasabian, it is direct trial testimony of her own firsthand observations, and is very good evidence of what really happened.

I agree. This is pretty serious evidence.

We also have to consider what the radio program said though. It looks pretty suspicious and their having been programed still can't be ruled out.

It starts getting to the heart of the matter at about the 20 minute mark.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

biccat
01-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Of course I think he was crazy. Crazy people make perfect patsies


I agree. This is pretty serious evidence.

We also have to consider what the radio program said though. It looks pretty suspicious and their having been programed still can't be ruled out.

It starts getting to the heart of the matter at about the 20 minute mark.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600

Sorry, you'll have to either summarize or provide a link to a description. I don't plan on listening to an hour of this woman's speculations about what she thinks. From what she is saying, there is no evidence, just her own speculation. She can have a conspiracy theory if she wants, but without evidence, I see no reason to give it any credence.

asdf2231
01-02-2009, 07:41 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/merkitten/funny%20shit/Facepalm.jpg

PoliCon
01-02-2009, 10:16 PM
and now for something compeletly different . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhuAtyFCrw

AmPat
01-02-2009, 10:23 PM
I presented this as a theory. You people are the ones who are being dogmatic. Listen to the radio program and if you hear something implausible, explain why it's implausible. You people are the ones who seem unwilling to discuss it. All you do is spout empty rhetoric and invective which doesn't impress thinking people. Seriously, if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you people right now.

Your references to all of us here as "you people" are just more evidence of your arrogance. Look up Paranoid schizophrenic and gullible fool next time you try to "educate" us ignore-ramouses.:cool:

Cosmored
01-03-2009, 10:28 AM
She can have a conspiracy theory if she wants, but without evidence, I see no reason to give it any credence.
I'm not in a position to be able to verify what she says. If those things she said happened really happened, serious consideration must be given to the theory that the Manson killings were a government black op.

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25600
(start listening at the 20 minute mark)

Whether they were a black op or not, people were led to believe that Manson represented the counter-culture. He had spent most of his life in prison and was not part of the counter-culture--he was mentally sick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU3jwdUFqWA
3W's (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=bU3jwdUFqWA

Those killings were a boon to the government as it wanted to discredit non-conformists. If they weren't a government black op, the government took advantage of the oportunity to discredit the counter-culture and falsely associated Manson with the counter-culture.

Also, if your argument is "Our government would never do such a thing.", you are dead wrong.

If you look at the similar things the US government has done, you'll see that the idea that the Manson killings were a black op is not far-fetched at all.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Hx_US_False_Flag_Oper.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Intro_False_Flag_Terror.html

The CIA trains torturers and death squad members.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1960s, Dan Mitrione, an employee of the US Office of Public Safety (part of the Agency for Intemational Development), which trained and armed foreign police forces, was stationed in Montevideo, Uruguay. Torturing political prisoners in Uruguay had existed before Mitrione's arrival. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper, Jo~nal do Brasil in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and Mitrione in particular, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured.
The newspaper interview greatly upset American officials in South America and Washington. The director of OPS in Washington tried to explain it all away by asserting: "The three Brazilian reporters in Montevideo all denied filing that story. We found out later that it was slipped into the paper by someone in the composing room at the Jornal do Brasil."
Mitrione built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo, in which he assembled Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques. Four beggars were rounded up to be the subjects upon whom Mitrione demonstrated the effects of different voltages on different parts of the body. The four of them died.
"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was Mitrione's motto.
"When you get what you want, and I always get it," he said, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening-up Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Untold_Story.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_Diary_Agee.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html

Enter "False flag", "Torture", or "Death squad" in this search engine for more.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html

If anyone is wondering why the govenment does all this stuff, see this thread.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=9004

SarasotaRepub
01-03-2009, 10:39 AM
(start listening at the 20 minute mark)


Buddy...do you really think anyone is going to waste their
time with this crap??? :rolleyes:

Jesus H Christ, if you're going to post about conspiracy
theories pick something that'll at least make me think about
clicking the links. How about aliens? I'm a sucker for those...
:D

Zathras
01-03-2009, 12:23 PM
I see that our idiot spammer just doesn't get it that we don't give a crap about his bullshit so time for a video that describes what he's doing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

Hey asswipe, don't you have an original thought in that empty head of yours or do you need to be led around by the nose like a little puppy dog, falling for every whacked out loser that comes along? And don't tell me you do think for yourself because, judging by your posts, it would be a lie.

Sonnabend
01-03-2009, 04:48 PM
Cosmored was not strong with the Force.....our Sith Admin found his lack of faith disturbing. :D:D

PoliCon
01-03-2009, 05:09 PM
Cosmored was not strong with the Force.....our Sith Admin found his lack of faith disturbing. :D:D

about F*ing time!

Ree
01-03-2009, 06:18 PM
Cosmored was not strong with the Force.....our Sith Admin found his lack of faith disturbing. :D:D
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/ReeW/w00t.gif