>>>>
>>>>Now, pls do not insult my inteligence (again) and accuse me of being conspiracy theorist or something, because this is purely
>>>>hypotetical, but very serious qustion;
>>>>
>>>>Imagine if ALL 3 are actually true. Just like now everybody simply turn their head away and dismiss it as lunacy,
>>>>all of a sudden obvious and irefutable evidence is revealed, proving , that all 3 are actually true, so people suddenly have to get into terms
>>>>with this new reality. Ok, take discount, just 2 out of 3 happen to be true, How would you feel ?
>>>
>>>1) re the JFK assassination (and RFK) I have no problem with conspiracy theories as they are more plausible than the "lone gunman" theory and the coverage of the crime and its followup was suspicious at best. My personal theory involves Carlos Marcello, a Corsican sniper, and some people who also had ties to Cuban exiles and therefore, peripherally to the CIA, but only as what were called UCLAs ('unilaterally controlled Latin assets') and their runners. I think I'm right about that one.
>>>
>>>Oliver Stone had it completely wrong because he followed Garrison and Garrison was a front-man for Marcello, diverting attention to a "political" motive. The JFK and RFK hits were, I believe much less complicated than that. One crime family took revenge on another for a perceived betrayal.
>>>
>>>2) is so delusional as to not require serious rebuttal but I would be interested to know if you believe it.
>>>
>>>3) Conspiracies become less believable when they would require levels of secrecy and collusion that are not believable. I just don't buy it. If some element wanted a motive to got grab oil someplace there were cheaper and more easily controlled ways to do it. I've read the arguments and find them silly. The number of people that would have had to be involved in the kind of operation the 911 doubters postulate puts it into the realm of fantasy.
>>>
>>>But how about the Bilderberger conspiracy? The Illuminati? The London Jewish Banking Conspiracy? The Myth of the Holocaust? The Masonic conspiracies of the 1840? P2 ? Black helicopters? New World Order secret messages in on the dollar bill? Let's imagine all those are true. I know how to make the case for each one.
>>>
>>>Imagination is fun. It just has limits.
>>>
>>>You obviously have different limits than I.
>>
>>Purpose of the question was not to dig into specifics of each theory. You choose to do it.
>>Not only did you miss to grasp the point of the question, but you choose to (again) insult my intelligence
>>despite my very direct apeal not to do it.
>>
>>What do I believe about moon landing ??? Oh that is so sweet :)
>>Ok let's turn the tables little bit ;
>>
>>Imaggine if moon landing was never transmitted for whole world to see, and all those nice pictures were never shown,
>>because of let say some wall of secrecy surrounding US effort to conquer the moon. So US landed on moon but never told
>>anybody because they decided to put some secret weapons there.
>>
>>Now there comes some fella' called Charles Hankey (ex CIA spy) and claims that US actually did land on moon back in 69 and you have all bunch of pictures to show, and even video tapes of some guy called Armstrong bouncing funny on the moon.
>>
>>So now you have US aparatus working to prevent you from disclosing the truth.
>>What do you think would have happened to Charles Hankey ?
>>
>>A) Killed in road accident
>>B) Ended up in mental hospital.
>>C) Made lot of money on selling this outrageous conspiracy theory.
>>D) Find himself in company with people who say that there are Black Helicopters out there.
>>
>>* * *
>>
>>There is NOTHING WRONG with questioning any story, be that official report, widely believed fact
>>or merits of any (conspiracy) theory itself. If you were to live in 13-14 century and say pablicly that earth is NOT flat
>>you would be quickly dismissed as lunatic or in some cases even burned alive. To any reasonable person back then,
>>such claim would sound really silly. ( It is so obviosely flat ! ) As it turns out earth is NOT flat, and nowdays who eve would
>>claim eart is flat is quickly dismissed as idiot. So please, do not be so quick to dismiss everything, because some
>>idiot of today might be very well proven right one day.
>>
>>Now what happen if any of these 3 are proven to be true (which will never happen, depite your doubts on JFK)
>>makes you kind of doubt many things. Now if all 3 are proven to be true (again will never happen) it would
>>perhaps break havoc in many people minds. They would start thinking things like;
>>What kind of society we are living inn? Is this democratic/transparent society we always wanted, or we might be
>>all living in a dark dungeon that today world is. Some people would perhaps get very angry, and some people perhaps take their anger to the streets. So, we sure don't want any of this to be proven true, not to even think that anything like that can be possibly true.
>>For our own sake.
>>
>>So I agree with you. Who ever see black helikopters or schools of UFO's circling arround their house
>>must be defenetely lunatic!
>>
>>Cheers :)
>
>I guess I really am missing your point, since it seems to be such an obvious one. So you are saying imagine if things that are widely held to be true are not. OK. Yes, that's happened and will happen again. But it does not mean that 911 conspiracists are correct or that some beliefs in certain conspiracy theories are not delusional.
>
>So what? I still contend that Ahmedinajhad ( the original object of my epithet of a dangerous loon ) believes things that I find absurd and the mullahs behind him are as bad and the idea of such people having nuclear weapons is a threat warranting intervention.
>
>I would not have wanted Oliver Cromwell, Joan of Arc, Cotton Mather, or John Brown to have nuclear weapons either.
>
>Having nukes in the hands of cynical, greedy, warlike people is bad enough. At least they can be somewhat restrained by fear of death and analysis of costs vs benefits. When God is calling the shots, behavior is much less predictable.
>
>I don't want crazy people to have the means to kill millions of people !!!
>
>(there is certainly enough of that going around)

I would not underestimate your intelect by implying that you have fallen victim to relentless warmongering propaganda against Iran,
since I am sure your understanding of the things is way more elevated.

However, You cannot judge level of actual threat from Iran by (mis)translating Ahmadinejad speeches casted at domestic level.
If you take into account statements casted domestically (and internationally) by likes of Mc Cain, Hillary and some others then you get prety much the same level of ''madness' going on. Ahmadinejad never said anything about bombing anybody, whereas Hillary for instance mentioned literally 'obliterating' Iran. So if Iran was to judge the threat to their national security based on hawkish statements casted in US
they would have to be very very scarred. They probably are, and with very good reason. Threat to Iran is much more real then perceived (propaganda inflated) threat to security of western countries in general and Israel in particular.

It is kind of painfull to watch 'wag-the-dog' being played over and over again, and that is exactly what is happening to Iran.