Comments on: Conspiracy Theories http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/ Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:56:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1 By: xx http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-903 Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:12:16 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=460#comment-903 Brain Wash Techniques at work against someone are not less deceptive than the terrorists’ acts: Al-Qaeda and links, mastermind, mafia, selective club membership words we hear all the time. What happens even with educated people who have some type of device and/or link to learn a (x) person’s happenings and communication (all legal but personal which requires privacy) through wireless methods whom they want to harm personally regardless of where the person is. Those who know this x person very well and are friendly with x person; these type of people brain wash this x person’s friends and include them in their own group to make the x person weak, isolated and harm this x person by creating obstruction in promotion, salary, friendship by false and unfair means. They even contact the x person’s outside work friends, and customers/clients to speak against the x person (by making some deal with them). They try to bring as many complaints as possible. Initially, it does not harm the x person because other people knew that this x person is very good and efficient and is not like that way as described by this person or these people. But they create too many negatives against the x person through brainwashing techniques that this x person is finally harmed in different ways – work efficiency is attacked and chances of not losing promotion but also loosing job; frustration from negatives through false and unfair means; isolation; attack on fair and good friendship; losses and more. They have access to x person’s computer not because this x person is doing anything illegal at all but because they learn this x person’s work this way by seeing the processed information on computer, and also become aware of what is being done so that they can harm the x person. If the person applies for a job, they know from this x person’s computer or other means of communication; and take this person’s name off the list or put it in the bottom not to be promoted. Also, if this x person wants to complain against these people, these people know exactly what this x person is going to do, to whom and when. These are called defensive and brainwashing techniques. If they can defend themselves and know about others, don’t you think Al-Quaeda and links can be aware of what is being done against them and how they can brain wash/mastermind someone to be in their group. How will you separate these two types. That is why the terrorists network cannot be measured in size (too large) as the devices are easily available to any and there are too many types of club (mafia, bad unions, links, network) memberships available to many.

]]> By: Conspire http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-902 Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:59:49 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=460#comment-902 Top Conspiracy Sites

]]> By: Leon http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-901 Mon, 08 Sep 2003 13:46:49 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=460#comment-901 Oops, did I cock up the link to the Meacher article? Apologies. I think I’ve seen that timeline before; there’s another good one here which has some scary/interesting anomalies regarding what Bush was actually doing when it happened

]]> By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-900 Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:38:38 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=460#comment-900 Oh, and see also this timeline of events surrounding the September 11th attacks. Some questionable tinfoil-hatisms, but mostly kosher and taken from reputable sources. (and I added the all important link to the Meacher article to your post Len!)

]]> By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2003/09/07/conspiracy-theories/comment-page-1/#comment-899 Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:35:51 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=460#comment-899 Heh, I was thinking of posting this last night. Here’s what I found typically irritating, the US embassy’s spokesman:

His fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.

Uh, the allegations aren’t fantastic, he’s just gathered together some undeniable facts, all of which have been reported previously in countless reputable sources. And, while being a member of cabinet obviously doesn’t automatically make you serious and credible, it’s not like he’s some raving loon who just popped up from the fringes. Still, easier to bluster than actually refute the allegations Meacher makes.

Oh, and I wonder when Meacher drew these conclusions. Presumably after he voted for the invasion and occupation of Iraq at every opportunity. Odd that he doesn’t mention that.

]]>