The Evolution Of A Conspiracy Theory

Take a situation with dubious circumstances. Throw in a large measure of distrust of the gov’t. Add some dead Americans. Top it with lies & obfuscation. Et voila, théorie du complot.

Let us quickly examine the recipe above:

Benghazi

Dubious circumstances? Check.
Distrust of gov’t? You betcha.
Dead Americans? 4. Check.
Lies & obfuscation? Check.

Et voila, théorie du complot:

It’s even worse than we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election?

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…

Take this story as written and you have a full-blown conspiracy involving the President of the United States of America. To bolster their plot lines, they are quoting an actual Admiral with a very respected reputation. It must be true, right?

Notice, first, the lead-in. They begin by establishing the “fact” that what they are reporting is actually what the good Admiral said. Then, they proceed to selectively quote the Admiral… mixing his words… and only quoting the ones… which seem to corroborate the plot they are spinning.

Now, that we have seen their method. Let’s quickly look at what the Admiral actually meant with his words. Since they haven’t provided a link to either a)the original article or b)the actual quote, we can infer that these story-tellers don’t want you to find the information for yourself.

Well, we here at The Real Revo, always want our readers to be as knowledgeable as humanly possible, to be spreading only the truth. What the good Admiral actually said in my closest estimation would sound more like this(I’m going to paraphrase since I don’t have source material to quote):

“What seems to have occurred during the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi we believe, was the result of a bungled abduction attempt by AQ. This would have been the first stage of an international prisoner exchange. AQ believes that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

Result? Debunked. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Evolution Of A Conspiracy Theory

  1. Uke says:

    Good article, Nota. We at the Revo aren’t concerned with conspiracy and propaganda. That shit’s the purview of the far left, and will lose you credibility in a hurry.

    We are a site that’s Spock-ian in nature: logic, reason, scientific proof. And sometimes that means you have to do your own research–as you did–before posting sensationalist articles from other sites.

  2. RJ says:

    Where there’s smoke there is fire.

    Nothing would surprise me about the dirty tricks this administration would have pulled to further their reelection.

    I agree dont spread obviously false stories or stuff so far out it is totally off the charts crazy.

    I remember when fast and furious sounded pretty far out, now not so much.

    Remember all the I wont take your guns speeches to fool the masses let’s see what he is gonna sign reference that issue before we drink the koolade.

    After all he is so flexible now.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Fast and Furious at least had a logic to it that tied it back to long standing law enforcement practices. There have been sting operations that have moved illegal weapons, drugs, etc for decades. Fast and Furious was nastier than that because it had broader aims than busting buyers. It was just a minor leap compared to treason. The people who agreed to carry out Fast and Furious on the ground might have believed it was just a sting and never knew they were taking part in a political agenda.

      Easy to believe: A conspiracy in which agents were told selling guns to Mexican drug lords will be a sting operation.

      Hard to believe: A conspiracy in which agents are told they must recruit Islamists to attack an American consulate and kidnap an American Ambassador.

      Big difference as far as I am concerned.

      • RJ says:

        yea but no plan to track the sold guns in the sting kinda puts a little WTF were the really trying to accomplish in this instance, taken with the “we’re working under the radar” spins it into a lot more believability.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          My point is that it is impossible to recruit for some conspiracies.

          “Hey, we are going to blow up the World Trade Center and murder many thousands and blame it on Islamists in America’s greatest treason and we’d like you to be a part of it. You’re not interested? Okay. Don’t tell anybody, okay?”

          Recruiting ATF agents to engage in a sting operation would have been a hell of a lot easier.

          • RJ says:

            granted, some conspiracies would be impossible to recruit for but everyone knows a good crisis should never go to waste.

            Some things appear perfectly genuine and turn out to be fake (toddler/eagle) thus sometimes the apparently obvious fake could be real.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    One of the things I hate about wild ass conspiracy theories is that they provide distraction from real issues. There is plenty of actual malfeasance and failure in Benghazi without dreaming up shit that is so unlikely that it is near impossible. You just can’t get large groups of people in comfortable lives to engage in treason. They have too little to gain and too much to lose. Furthermore, how would you even recruit? “I have a job for you but you have to promise not to tell if you refuse to do it.” Please.

  4. notamobster says:

    Yeah, RJ, I actually meant to put that in my final draft. I just got busy writing and forgot. Thus, I have absolutely no trouble believing that this administration would do such a thing as this. It’s just that they didn’t do this… and I’m not spreading obvious crap.

  5. RJ says:

    They do distract for sure, and absolute malfeasance, Who the hell ordered the available help not to help? Lets just start with that then move on to why the hell they did so?

    Seems like every time something pops with thus guy a big ol squirrel runs across the road.

    Right now the gun grabbers are screaming at the top of their lungs distracting from the recent tax raise as well as the upcoming debt ceiling issue and no budget from congress for the last 4 yrs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>