Verified 'Conspiracies' A Historical Norm

By Aidan Monaghan

Those who automatically dismiss so called 'conspiracy theories' as the products of paranoia or over-active imaginations are simply not familiar with even recent history.

Governments can and do manipulate critical events out of public view and will apparently lie to the public about these events to conceal such activity and manipulate public opinion, as will be seen.

History is full of verified 'conspiracies'.

(Derived primarily from the Cooperative Research website)

In 1979, the American public was lead to believe that the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan was an unprovoked act of aggression.

Only years later did the world learn that the U.S. tampered with Afghanistan behind the scenes to provoke this invasion and the 10 year war that killed over 1 million.

What is equally noteworthy is that supposed humanitarian Jimmy Carter himself approved of this war provocation behind the scenes, yet in front of a watching world, boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics in retaliation to Moscow's alleged 'aggression'.

American-Led Boycott Of The 1980 Summer Olympics

U.S. Provoked Soviet Invasion Of Afghanistan

July 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan

President Carter authorizes covert aid for anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. According to his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, this was part of a deliberate policy to inflame militant Islamic fundamentalism in the region with the aim of forcing the Soviets to invade. The CIA, Pakistani ISI, and others had been supporting anti-Soviet forces already for years and such support had particularly increased in 1978 (see 1973-1979). [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/15/1999] The Soviets do invade Afghanistan six months later (see December 26, 1979).

December 26, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan

The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. They will withdraw in 1989 after a brutal 10-year war. It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked. However, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that the CIA began destabilizing the pro-Soviet Afghan government six months earlier in a deliberate attempt to get the Soviets to invade and have their own Vietnam-type costly war (see July 1979). Brzezinski rhetorically asks, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002] The US and Saudi Arabia give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. [Nation, 2/15/1999]

This example may not be the best

One problem with this Afghanistan example is that a great many people in this county and elsewhere will agree with it. People did feel it wise to destabilize the Soviet Union. So, implicitly, people agree with the CIA doing things like this, with basically no oversight and certainly no democratic input.

People agree with having a secret and hugely well-funded and powerful agency doing things like this. But most of us here probably find it frightening, given our best guess as the CIA's likely role on 9-11-01.

A longer view of this Afghanistan example would take into account the Taliban, as well as the fact of a growingly militant Islam, world-wide. For some reason, leaders rarely look beyond a simple outcome that they desire. They usually fail to realize that other undesirable outcomes will also result. You can't restrict it to the one outcome only. Military invasions almost always lack any sort of long view.

M.K. Gandhi saw it as a principle: violence absolutely never achieves a lastingly good result. It can achieve what looks like a good result, but in the long run that too erodes into a sort of disaster for everyone concerned.

The problem with non-violence is that it requires both courage and patience. World leaders rarely have either of those characteristics. Our current leaders have neither.

Sad, but true

But what would people think if they knew we kept shipping jihadist textbooks to Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, and even after 9/11?

I like to use the example of

I like to use the example of secret U.S. radiation experiments during WWII. Most Americans remain unaware that this large-scale "conspiracy" took place within the same time period as the Nazi experiments that we exposed and decried. Even people who know about Operation Paperclip don't know that this kind of thing was going on here prior to the secret Nazi importation program.

This is from the Amazon review of the book Plutonium Files:

"As World War II reached its climax, the U.S. push to create an atomic bomb spawned an industry the size of General Motors almost overnight. But a little-understood human dilemma quickly arose: How was all the radiation involved in building and testing the bomb going to affect the countless researchers, soldiers, and civilians exposed to it? Government scientists scrambled to find out, fearing cancer outbreaks and worse, but in their urgency conducted classified experiments that bordered on the horrific: MIT researchers fed radioactive oatmeal to residents of a state boys' school outside Boston; prisoners in Washington and Oregon were subjected to crippling blasts of direct radiation; and patients with terminal illnesses (or so it was hoped) were secretly injected with large doses of plutonium--survivors were surreptitiously monitored for years afterward.

"It was these plutonium guinea pigs that set journalist Eileen Welsome on her decade-long search to expose this grisly chapter of America's atomic age, a feat that would earn her the Pulitzer Prize. In the impressively thorough and compelling Plutonium Files, Welsome recounts her work with a reporter's gift for description, characterizing early radiation researchers as "a curious blend of spook, scientist, and soldier," tirelessly interviewing survivors and their families, and providing social and political context for a complex and far-reaching scandal. Perhaps most damning is that not only did these cold-war experiments violate everything from the Hippocratic Oath to the Nuremberg Code, Welsome reveals, they were often ill-conceived, inconclusive, and repetitive--"they were not just immoral science, they were bad science."

And people don't believe that the U.S. government would hurt innocent Americans in pursuit of a "higher" goal...



Perhaps "cover up" is a better alternative than "conspiracy." To have a "conspiracy" you need a trial and a prosecution in order to give it legitimacy. Since we never do get that level of justice, that is why the term falls short. It also is stigmatized by the corporate disinformation press.

Believing the existence of a cover up, however, is much easier to prove, and it leads gracefully to the next question: WHAT ARE THEY COVERING UP?

It also gives the other side the option of saying that they are just covering up their own "incompetence." And, of course you debate on from there. But, establishing the existence and acknowledgement that a cover up exists in the first place is easier and more productive than starting with "conspiracy."

As for known conspiracies, I'd point to GLADIO, WTC-93, OKLAHOMA CITY, and GULF OF TONKIN for starters. Of course all of these will be fought tooth and nail by the "debunkers." The weight of evidence is on the side of conspiracy though.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Enron was a huge conspiracy

and was only revealed when they ran out of lenders to keep them afloat...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Yes, but we'll never get the

Yes, but we'll never get the majority to change their semantics,

Here's a crackpot, for example:

This Was A Conspiracy


'A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act.'

'Conspiracy, in common usage, is the act of working in secret to obtain some goal.'

Manipulating a group of innocent people to fight your wars that results in the deaths of 1 million is evil in my view.

The 'Cold War' was little more than a covert battle between 2 rivaling world views.

The U.S stirred up a lot of fear during that time in it's citizens however the Soviets would never have nuked us out fear of a mutually assured destruction (MAD).

The U.S. and Soviets were little more than 2 empires that wound up stepping on each others toes mostly over Europe.

I would say that Americans have fared better that their counterparts in the Soviet Union yet as a consumer of 25% of the worlds energy for decades (energy that could be shared with the rest of the planet), the U.S. government and the economic model it advocates has hardly been generous or realistic on a larger scale.