OU on the BBC: Thinking Allowed - Conspiracy theories

"Neither of our speakers were questioning the existence of conspiracies. Far from it, they were talking about the reasons for persistence of certain conspiracy theories in the face of a barrage of contradictory evidence" Laurie on this past weeks show.

So why have the gentleman on who was ridiculing any theory that didn't conform to what the governments want you to believe? If you have someone like that on your show then equally you need someone who ridicules people who are unquestioning of what they're told when there is clearly 'contradictory evidence' presented to us via the main stream media.

This program is called Thinking Allowed. It should be called Thinking ABSOLUTELY NOT Allowed.

I look forward to this weeks show to see how the comments go, it may very well be the last one I listen to but that doesn't really matter as other people will carry on listening and not thinking about or questioning anything they are told.

It seems to me that the most successful conspiracy theory of recent years was the one about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”.

It was claimed that the government of the Republic of Iraq had conspired to conceal from United Nations weapons inspectors chemical, biological (and possibly even nuclear) weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, and was plotting to threaten world peace.

One of the promulgators of this conspiracy theory, the bloody consequences of which are to this day being played out on the streets of Iraq, was none other than one of the guests on the programme, David Aaronovitch. Mister Aaronovitch used his weekly column in The Guardian to push the case for an Anglo-American invasion on the basis of these allegations. If he wanted to write a book on the psychology of adherence to conspiracy theories than he needed look no further than his own mind.

Incidentally, all versions of the truth with respect to the attack on the World Trade Centre are conspiracy theories. The official claim, that a group hijackers acting on behalf of Al Qaeda crashed civilian airliners into the World trade Centre (a claim that I believe is correct) is itself a conspiracy theory. A group of people making a secret agreement to act in concert is the very definition of a conspiracy.

One of the problems with the Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is that, given that faking the landing of people on the Moon would entail such great effort, why would NASA indulge in such a deception not once, not twice, but six times? Apart from all the scientific evidence that humans actually visited the Moon, there is the political evidence: the Soviet government accepted the US claims. The USSR would have had the ability to expose the Apollo landings as hoaxes. To claim that the landings were faked is to implicitly claim that the Cold War was a hoax.

I found the programmes really interesting. However I wish they had talked more about some of the awful consequences that people with these beliefs sometimes have and provided some practical advice about what to do if you have a friend or family member who believes in a world order that secretly control everyone.

Unfortunately my brothers a bit of a conspiracy head to the point where is refusing to live in the UK because he refuses to pay ‘them’ taxes. He refuses to watch TV because he thinks he is being brain washed, he only reads book about ‘evidence’ for conspiracies, as a result we now rarely see him and when we do we are all on egg shells just in case we say or do something that might upset him. He is highly suspicious of us.
It’s like he is in a cult.

I was completely gobsmacked by the biased programming. Why wasn't there anyone representing other sides of the discussions. Instead the BBC thought it was acceptable to ridicule anyone who even questions when things don't add up. If you don't believe what the BBC tells you then apparently you are a fool. Despite the BBC's history of misreporting. Here are some quite shocking examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI Here's the BBC telling the world that Building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0&feature=player_embedded Here's the BBC telling the world that people are celebrating in Green Square Libya... who cares if they're really Indian people in India waving Indian flags.

As for the chap on the show who said it would be easier to get a man on the moon than stage the moon landings, what is he on? Has he not watched any Hollywood film? Apollo 13 was filmed in a studio, they didn't really go into space.

I agree with the above contributor that the “conspiracy theory” contributors seem to be somewhat biased, but IMHO that is because they have have neglected both the “opportunistic theory “ and the “cock-up” theory.

Almost nobody doubts that a criminal organization had attacked the twin towers, and almost certainly planned to do so again. What is curious is that their penetration of US military secrecy allowed them to synchronize their attack with USAF exercises which, were conveniently several flying hours distant, and that the usual 'scramble' of fighters was in the terminology of WWII “half-way up and a mile behind”.

Similarly, no-one could seriously doubt that nuclear science and biology was studied in the universities of Iraq and Iran. That is very far indeed from Blair's “Duo of Dodgy Documents” and Powell's phial of deadly anthrax.

Question 1: what did Iraqis use before the had candles? Answer: Electric lights – some of which was intended to be powered from the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center reactor which the Israeli “Operation Opera” thoughtfully decommissioned for them in 1981.

Question 2: Who benefited from invading Iraq? The liberated Iraqis or the liberated anarchy which allowed the invaders to “secure” valuable oil wells – presumably for the benefit of the local people impoverished by war caused by stupidly electing Saddam Hussein, a military leader who would 'solve' the Iraq-Iran border dispute which concerned, er, ownership and exploitation of those same oil wells. He would fail to do so despite lavish US expenditure on training his military, advanced armaments and political support (at least, until he fell out of favor for pricing his oil in strong EU currencies instead of easily devalued US greenbacks).

Cynicism (aka conspiracy), opportunism and cock-up see? Al Queda did not exist in Iraq before the US invasion introduced it – whether via conspiracy, opportunism or (most likely) cock-up.

Twin towers is hardly unique – Who can guess if the Reichstag fire of 1933 was conspiracy or accident, but few can doubt it provided a very welcome opportunity for Hitler to blame and murder Jews and steal their money.

Were Spanish churches bombed deliberately by conspirators or by accident? Franco certainly exploited the opportunity to blame and murder the republicans whose legitimacy he subverted and whose assets he stripped (his heirs are rather wealthy in consequence).

Was Galtieri encouraged to liberate “Argentina's Maldives”? Who knows. Certainly both the iron lady and the steely general made huge (if passing) political capital and oodles of cash by exploiting the conflict.

Clearly 9-11 was planned by someone, but were they somehow 'enabled' so that oil magnate Bush and business baron Rumsfeld did indeed exploit the opportunity gain popularity and, er, riches beyond MY imagination!

Yes, ours is indeed a wicked world in which bad things happen: Some by design and some by chance.

The one sure thing is that by nature humans survive by exploiting catastrophes such as war, pestilence, flood and fire (and the occasional Ice Age). Those who are ruthless do best in difficult circumstances 'naturally' get admiration and riches from us, their exploited, less able, often unwilling followers.

Is it any wonder we “lower classes” sometimes suffer envy and hatred for those brave enough to torture and murder lesser mortals?

Both Islam and Christianity teach love and forgiveness "Go, sin no more" The 'orthodox expert' practitioners and supreme leaders of any religion or sect, and any "National leader" is almost bound to become a punitive, often murderous psychopath, for the road to hell, is, I believe, truly paved with good intentions.

Hi , I wanted to comment about the one sided view that was being presented in this programme, as if to say, 'any one who doesnt have our view is in the wrong'. This is both arrogant and shameful. The presenter should be reminded that tax payers are paying for these programmes and they should be given programmes that are not brain washing them and instead giving the picture on both sides of the coin. I dont know on what basis the preseneter, or whoever designed this episode , decided that only one view would be shown to the public and that no one who had a different view would be allowed to contribute. This is not the norm. And is very shameful and arrogant.

People have brains and know that on each issue there are many sides and views. To say that ALL conspiracy theories are untrue is a dangerous generalisation, just as bad as saying that all conspiracies are true. One instead should look at the evidence for each alleged conspiracy and see where the evidence takes them , instead of thinking that it must be false. This episode was definitly not on par with the level of a BBC Radio 4 level.

Also by brain washing people that all conspiracies must be false gives a very strong signal to courrupt governments to conspire against their people and other nations hoping that there will be more people who continue to spread brain washing that all conspiracies are false. And making any one who protests against an alleged conspiracy to be a subject of redicule.

Please BBC do not let such biased programmes be made any more. And I would like a strong apology from the presenter of this programme about this arrogance.

Many thanks

ali