The Relevant Questions Theory

Regarding conspiracies, I have a theory I call "The Relevant Questions Theory". It is quite obvious theory, but it can be useful to put it written.

The theory is as follows: if the official version of an event, can not answer 5 relevant questions succesfully, then the conspiracy theory is justified. Notice that the "relevance" of the questions is what will determine the number of unanswered questions that are needed to doubt the official version.
For instance, one question can be enough to justify doubting the official version, if this question is relevant enough. A recent example: the (staged) chemical attack in Douma. The official version is not able to answer the most relevant question of all: why would Assad do it? In this case, one single question is enough to doubt the official version.


If we apply this theory to the event that has likely generated the biggest amount of conspiracy theories of the XXth century, the killing of John F. Kennedy, we can without much thinking, write more than 5 unanswered relevant questions:

- Why Oswald is allowed to come back from the Soviet Union without any trouble? Even bringing his wife Marina, who was the niece of a colonel in the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs, with him...
- Why Oswald buys the rifle by post?
- Why Oswald takes a photo with the rifle? (Without considering if the photo is legit or not) Why gives this photo to a friend? Why is it found so late?
- Why shoot Kennedy at Dealey Plaza and not at Houston Street? [https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/10/26/20171027_jfkpara2.jpg]
- How Jack Ruby was allowed to kill Oswald?
- How could JFK's brain get lost? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts]

But there are many more.

Regarding 9/11 -despite I do not want to believe it was an "inside job"-:
"the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. (...) In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq]
How could Atta's passport, who was piloting one of the planes, survive the plane crashing the tower, the fire in the tower, and the final tower collapse?

But probably this question does not support the "inside job" theory but just arises (very serious) questions about the investigation of the attacks, which is maybe as scary as the "inside job" theory itself.


But "the 5 questions theory" can also be used nowadays, to "quarantine" the stories that the mainstream media tell us.
For instance, regarding the Skripal case:
Did you know that Skripal was caught by the russians in 2004?! I always assumed he had been discovered recently, but no. He was condemned in Russia to 13 years, and exchanged for other spies later...
- So why would the russians want to kill Skripal after 14 years...?
- Why would they exchange him if he was so important as to kill him later...?
- Why would they want to kill him if he was only condemned to 13 years (what for a traitor spy seems a pretty light sentence)...?


Or, as we commented, about the chemical attack in Douma, Syria:
April 04: Trump says the US are going to leave Syria
April 07: Assad accused of chemical attack "forcing" the US to stay
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html]

If you don't see anything suspicious here...



Sometimes, questions have the opposite effect: they serve to weaken a conspiracy theory. The best example is the "moon conspiracy". Here, one simple question, is enough to discredit all moon conspiracy theories: why did not the Soviet Union claim that the moon landing was a hoax, if it was so? So far, I haven't heard anybody answer this question (reasonably).



Another good example, well-known in Spain, explained (only partly and leaving out many important facts) in the Netflix documentary "The Alcasser Case" is one of the darkest episodes in the Spanish 90s decade: the triple murder of Alcasser [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcasser_Girls]:
- DNA from between 5 and 7 different people were found on the corpses, that didn't belong to the suspects (one was later condemned, another ran away and has never been captured) [https://elpais.com/diario/1997/06/03/espana/865288822_850215.html]. Still now, this mistery has not been solved [https://elpais.com/diario/1996/11/10/espana/847580419_850215.html].
- How could the police find a hospital document that allowed to track one of the accused, in the burial site of the victims in the country after several months, after all kind of weather including windy and rainy days? This document, that had the name of the brother of one of the suspects, didn't fall from a pocket, as it had been torn in several pieces... Meaning that the suspect had allegedly torn it and thrown it away... exactly were he and his accomplices buried three murdered girls...
- How could such a suspect (who forgets a document with his brother's name on a burial site of a triple murder, escape the police and never be found?

I have no theory about what happened, it was such a monstruous crime I have usually avoided it, but such questions require a reasonable answer.


Do you have any such questions to share? About these or any other cases?

Hillary Clinton: Promises vs Facts

Victims of "Russian propaganda"

One of the accusations made to me in Twitter that I find more surprising and ridiculous is that of being victim of "Russian propaganda" or "Putin's propaganda". This accusation is a big insult to anyone's intelligence.

I live in Spain. When I turn on the TV there is not even one channel that broadcasts anything similar to "Russian propaganda"; quite the opposite, the only version given is that of the the EU, the US and NATO. When I turn on the radio, there is no "Russian propaganda" to be found anywhere; as in the tv, everywhere there is only the Western version. Exactly the same can be said about printed newspapers and magazines. But not only that, whenever you enter the internet, the headlines that services like Twitter, Google, Microsoft, etc. suggest me are those from big Spanish and International news corporations. Everything a Spanish citizen receives is EU/US/NATO propaganda. And I am quite sure that exactly the same happens in every Western country.

To receive "Russian propaganda" you have to look for it. A Spanish citizen will never come in contact with RT (Russia Today - the most popular "Russian propaganda" news service), or any other pro-Russian site, if they do not actively look for it (or a contact in a social media actively looks for it). So you simply can not be a victim of "Russian propaganda" if you live in a Western country: you can only be a victim of Western propaganda or a "rebel".

PS1: One of the recurrent moments when I get the accusation of being victim of "Russian propaganda" is when I oppose the affirmations "Russia invaded Ukraine" or "Russia occupied Crimea". But there is no influence of the "Russian propaganda" in my opinion; in fact it is the influence of Western propaganda. The Western propaganda that recurringly showed maps of the Ukrainian election results to show "how unfair was for half of the Ukrainians that Yakunovych was president". And I thought, why is this unfair, and not the opposite situation? And when Yanukovych was removed from the Presidency, I thought how can this be fair for the half of the Ukrainians that voted for him? And I foud it logical that the regions of Ukraine that had majorily voted for him, wanted to leave a country where their democratic vote could be washed away by a revolution by the other half who have voted for the other option. More essentially, my option is based on the maps of the elections that the Western media published over the years, until Yanukovych was removed.

PS2: If you want to know my theory about why people look for it, for "Russian propaganda", as well as for any alternative source of information (zerohedge, infowars, etc.), is that people do not trust anymore Western media, because you feel they are not telling the truth, or not telling the entire truth, and they want to see another point of view.

Hillary Clinton admits (the obvious): the USA created Al-Qaeda

"Because when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan we had this brilliant idea we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of mujahedeen and equip them with stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.

And we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan, and then we said great, good-bye, leaving these trained people, who were fanatical, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving them well-armed, creating a mess, frankly, that at the time we didn't really recognize, we were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall and we thought fine we are OK now everything is going to be so much better.

Now you look back. The people we are fighting today, we were supporting in the fight the soviets." Hillary Clinton, in Fox News.

List of dictators supported by the United States: #04 Sani Abacha

"Abacha's government was accused of human rights abuses, especially after the hanging of Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa by the Oputa Commission (only one of several executions of Ogoni activists opposed to the exploitation of Nigerian resources by the multinational petroleum company, Royal Dutch Shell Group); Abiola and Olusegun Obasanjo were jailed for treason, and Wole Soyinka charged in absentia with treason.[5] His regime suffered stiff opposition internally and externally by pro-democracy activists who made the regime unpopular, and responded by banning political activity in general and by controlling the press in particular; a significant fraction of the military was purged." [Wikipedia]

""Despite being repeatedly condemned by the U.S. State Department,[7] Abacha did have a few ties to American politics. In 1997, Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) traveled to Nigeria to meet with Abacha as a representative of "The Family", a group of evangelical Christian politicians and civic leaders. Abacha and The Family had a business and political relationship from that point until his death.[8][9]" [Wikipedia]
Inhofe's first "king" was General Sani Abacha, dictator of Nigeria—Africa's most populous nation, as well as the US's fourth-largest supplier of petroleum. Abacha was known for two qualities: the greed that led him to steal $3 billion from his country, and the ruthlessness that made that theft possible. His execution of dissident writer Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995—two years before Inhofe's first visit—made international headlines. Abacha already had a long record of brutally dispatching opponents, many of whom happened to be critics of the US and the oil industry. But then, as one Family leader has put it, we all make mistakes. "You can't help who you are. I mean, can't he have a friend?"

Inhofe would be that friend. (...)

Nigeria had become a pariah nation by then, and the Clinton administration had condemned Abacha's coup. But its oil continued flowing to the US despite occasional warnings that Congress, or the administration, might impose an embargo. By the time Inhofe, winner of a lifetime service award from a petroleum industry group, went to Nigeria, analysts worried that the signal Abacha was getting from Washington was that the sanctions threat was all but dead." [motherjones.com]

List of dictators supported by the United States: #03 Ibrahim Babangida

"He was appointed lieutenant Colonel and Commander of the Armoured Corps after his return from the Advanced Officers Course at the Army Armoured School in the United States from 1972 to 1973." as it states in Ibrahim Babangida's own web, ibrahimbabangida.com.

Despite the efforts made in his website to defend Babangida's legacy, the accusations of attacks on human rights under his Presidency are too solid, especially the ones involving him in the death of Dele Giwa, a magazine editor critical of Babangida's administration. [Wikipedia]

List of dictators supported by the United States: #02 Siad Barre

"Control of Somalia was of great interest to both the Soviet Union and the United States due to the country's strategic location at the mouth of the Red Sea. After the Soviets broke with Barre in the late 1970s, he subsequently expelled all Soviet advisers, tore up his friendship treaty with the Soviet Union, and switched allegiance to the West. The United States stepped in and until 1989, was a strong supporter of the Barre government for whom it provided approximately US$100 million per year in economic and military aid." [Wikipedia]

See the full List of Dictators Supported by the United States.

List of dictators supported by the United States: #01 Mobutu Sese Seko

Mobutu Sese Seko with Richard Nixon. Washington D.C., 1973.

"For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States. The United States was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire (after Belgium and France), and Mobutu befriended several U.S. presidents, including Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.

Because of Mobutu's poor human rights record, the Carter Administration worked to put some distance between itself and the Kinshasa government; even so, Zaire was the recipient of nearly half the foreign aid Carter allocated sub-Saharan Africa." [Wikipedia]

See the full List of Dictators Supported by the United States.

Denialism

The world is full of denialists. They have the ability to switch off their hearing system to avoid the conflict of dealing with uncomfortable truths.

The believers of the neocon faith are a great example. That is probably why they hate so much Wikileaks. The mere concept of it, something that tells you secrets that make your life more complicated (or less simple, which is not exactly the same), makes them shriver.

There is something that they hate to hear about, and it is the accusation that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the U.S.

The big problem is that, despite corporation control of mass media, with internet it is quite difficult to keep some dark secrets from


Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in 1983.



Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is the perfect example of this, as we can see in this video:

U.S. Fleet Average Fuel Economy

[Source]

CIA created Osama Bin Laden

"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm, train, and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken; funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[38] who Pakistani officials believed was "their man".[39] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat." [Wikipedia]

"Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."" [Wikipedia]

Wikileaks: The Tunisian Link

Many of us may have thought in the last days of how important has been the Wikileaks' cables release in the fall of Tunisia's dictator, Ben Ali.

This may be not the first internet promoted revolution, but the first internet detonated revolution [CNN], therefore many have called it the first Wikileaks revolution.

American Ambassador Godec wrote in one of the cables:

"Tunisia is a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems...

The problem is clear: President Ben Ali... and his regime have lost touch with the Tunisian people. They tolerate no advice or criticism, whether domestic or international." [thefirstpost]

Even the existence of corruption, known by everybody, exploded after the Wikileaks cables were released. [about.com]

Another interesting aspect of all this Wikileaks affaire is how big is the responsaibility of the American administration for hiding the crimes of many politicians around the world. Wouldn't this be a evident case of cover-up?

USA and the KLA

Senator Joseph Lieberman

Now that nobody can deny the links between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and drug dealing and organ trafficking it is good to remember some things:

"[The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles ... Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."

Senator Jo. Lieberman, quoted in the 'Washington Post', 28 April 1999

"American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia (...) Central Intelligence Agency officers were ceasefire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police."

Tom Walker and Aiden Laverty, ‘CIA Aided Kosovo Guerrilla Army’, Sunday Times, 12 March 2000.

If your laws don't allow you to punish someone, just make new ones

"That Washington would like to take legal action against him and as quickly as possible can hardly be in doubt. But building a case solid enough to allow Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, to seek Assange's extradition from Britain, if that is where he still is at the time, or – possibly more problematically – from Sweden, may not be easy. The most obvious first stop might be the 1917 Espionage Act. But when the US government tried to use it to punish The New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, it failed.

It is for that reason that some US politicians are introducing draft legislation to expand existing US laws to make it easier for Mr Holder to do his job. The so-called Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (Shield) Bill was thus introduced by Congressman Peter King, a Republican from New York who will become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when the new House of Representatives with a Republican majority convenes in January." [The Independent]

PS: Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination? Don't you think that Republicans are really bad for names?

U.S. Army War Crimes in Iraq

Crims de guerra de l'exèrcit d'EEUU a Iraq.
Crímenes de guerra del ejercito de EEUU en Iraq.

The Photo: the United States leave Iraq

Last United States Army brigade leaves Iraq.

Pax Americana (in Iraq)

Ayer apareció un video publicado por Wikileaks, organización que se dedica a filtrar documentación oficial o clasificada. Algunos (especialmente las administraciones) cuestionan esta actividad. Parece más que evidente lo adecuado, lo necesario, de la tarea efectuada por organizaciones como Wikileaks cuando visionamos el siguiente video.

En este video se puede ver como unos soldados norteamericanos asesinan indiscriminadamente a un grupo de iraquies, incluyendo a un fotógrafo de Reuters y su chófer, e hiriendo de gravedad a dos niños.

Las autoridades militares han alegado que los soldados confundieron la cámara del fotógrafo con un arma y que su actuación está de acuerdo con la ley en conflictos armados y reglas de combate (Rules of Engagement), la normativa sobre cuándo, dónde y cómo el uso de la fuerza debe ser usada. [La Vanguardia] Juzguen ustedes mismos tras el visionado del vídeo.

Lo más grave, tal vez incluso más que el asesinato de civiles inocentes, es la impunidad con la que fue cometido este crimen, que milagrosamente se ha hecho público y que, a pesar de ello, probablemente quede impune. Y la pregunta evidente es, ¿en cuántas ocasiones habrá sucedido lo mismo y jamás lo sabremos?

Versión completa

American Intolerance

Often US politicians and mass media try to convince themselves and the rest of the world, of how much they fight against intolerance, often personalized in the islasmists.

But it is funny to see how they are allergic to any critic. As an example, we can take a look at the example of Jane Fonda, who has been victim of radical criticism by many sectors of American society only for her political views.

That's why WE SUPPORT JANE FONDA!

To the moon and back

Sobre l'arribada de l'home a la Lluna s'han escrit centenars de pàgines. Però cada cop és més nombrosa la gent que pensa que realment no hi hem arribat [*]. Als EEUU aquestes teories (que comunment s'engloben dins de les grans teories conspiratives) van reapareixer amb força gràcies al documental Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon? [*].

Personalment, fa temps que crec que no van arribar pas a la Lluna. Les raons? Diverses:

1. Tenien el motiu. El fet que la URSS hagués estat la primera en enviar un home a l'espai havia estat un cop molt dur per l'orgull americà. A més, la crisi dels missils de Cubà, el creixent problema a Vietnam...feient que molts americans sentissin que la guerra contra el comunisme no anava del tot bè.

2. Tenien la tecnologia. Recordem que 2001. A Space Odyssey, d'Stanley Kubrick és de l'any anterior a la supossada arribada a la Lluna.

3. Els russos sempre van estar molt més avançats en la carrera espaial, com demostren dos fets: van ser els primers en enviar un home a l'espai; i els americans no van ser capaços de crerar una estació espaial com la MIR, fins a la creació de l'Estació Espaial Internacional.

4. Durant 3 anys, dotze persones (incloent) Armstrong van trepitjar (supossadament) la Lluna; i de sobte ningú hi ha tornat en 37 anys!