Operation Gladio - a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true

[financeguy]

Conspiracy theories and theorists are routinely scorned on this forum.

Here is a 'conspiracy theory' that turned out to be true:-

Operation Gladio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politicians about Gladio
Whilst the existence of a "stay-behind" organization such as Gladio was disputed, prior to its confirmation by Giulio Andreotti, with some skeptics describing it as a conspiracy theory, several high ranking politicians in NATO countries have made statements appearing to confirm the existence of something like what is described:

Former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti ("Gladio had been necessary during the days of the Cold War but, that in view of the collapse of the East Bloc, Italy would suggest to NATO that the organisation was no longer necessary.")
Former French minister of defense Jean-Pierre Chevènement ("a structure did exist, set up at the beginning of the 1950s, to enable communications with a government that might have fled abroad in the event of the country being occupied.").
Former Greek defence minister, Yannis Varvitsiotis ("local commandos and the CIA set up a branch of the network in 1955 to organise guerrilla resistance to any communist invader")
As noted above, the US has now acknowledged the existence of Operation Gladio.

 

[BVS]

Conspiracy theories and theorists are routinely scorned on this forum.

Well conspiracy theories by definition are routinely "scorned" or questioned almost everywhere not just this forum. That's why they are theories and not fact.

And not that there's anything wrong with Wikipedia, but it's not exactly the source I would use to prove a conspiracy true.

 

[financeguy]

And not that there's anything wrong with Wikipedia, but it's not exactly the source I would use to prove a conspiracy true.

Well, you're not a source I would use either.

 

[BVS]

Um, OK...

 

[financeguy]

Well, why not address the topic? That article seems well-researched. Are the quotes from Andreotti and others incorrect?

 

[Harry Vest]

It seems to me there are a few individuals here at FYM that have such a disdain for anything conspiritorial that they'll bend over backwards to disprove, shrugg off or simply laugh about ANY and ALL "theories" - never allowing themselves the room to contemplate that there may be certain TRUTHS that they were not taught in school, that never made it into the history books and that may have been purposely kept from us by individuals, agencies or Governments.

 

[BVS]

Well, why not address the topic? That article seems well-researched. Are the quotes from Andreotti and others incorrect?

Well first off like many of your threads you start off with an attack of this forum, doesn't really lead to great debate.

Secondly, all I was saying is I wouldn't use Wiki to prove a conspiracy. It's great for a lot of things, but when it comes to proving the controversial it's not your best tool.

Wiki itself stated some sections were under review. Personally I don't know much about the topic and would need to do more research to see if those quotes and other facts are real.

 

[BVS]

It seems to me there are a few individuals here at FYM that have such a disdain for anything conspiritorial that they'll bend over backwards to disprove, shrugg off or simply laugh about ANY and ALL "theories" - never allowing themselves the room to contemplate that there may be certain TRUTHS that they were not taught in school, that never made it into the history books and that may have been purposely kept from us by individuals, agencies or Governments.

Well this argument of yours has been shot down more times than I can count. You often believe in conspiracy theories just for the sake of believing them and argue them with little to no facts. We like things to be backed up in here, call us silly

 

[Dreadsox]

Well this argument of yours has been shot down more times than I can count. You often believe in conspiracy theories just for the sake of believing them and argue them with little to no facts. We like things to be backed up in here, call us silly

Thanks-----you took the words right out of my mouth.

I am not really sure where the conspiracy is here.....but.....I for one have no interest in looking into it or searching for the research to make a case.

 

[financeguy]

I am not really sure where the conspiracy is here.....but.....I for one have no interest in looking into it or searching for the research to make a case.

Really? You posted to tell us that? What was the point, quite honestly?

 

[financeguy]

Well first off like many of your threads you start off with an attack of this forum, doesn't really lead to great debate.

Secondly, all I was saying is I wouldn't use Wiki to prove a conspiracy. It's great for a lot of things, but when it comes to proving the controversial it's not your best tool.

Wiki itself stated some sections were under review. Personally I don't know much about the topic and would need to do more research to see if those quotes and other facts are real.

Anytime you want to actually DISCUSS an issue....

 

[Dreadsox]

Really? So why even bother answering in the freakin thread, if that's the case??

You basically brought me out with your ravings. Which, make me laugh! Clearly, I am not intelligent enough to ignore evidence when it does not fit the conspiracy. I thought it would be nice to let you have your moment, you know? Kind of like a cat playing with a mouse.

 

[financeguy]

You basically brought me out with your ravings. Which, make me laugh! Clearly, I am not intelligent enough to ignore evidence when it does not fit the conspiracy. I thought it would be nice to let you have your moment, you know? Kind of like a cat playing with a mouse.

Keep on believing everything your government tells you.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ummmmm....I could really have saved myself a lot of time and money with the amount of research I have done on Kennedy if I believed everything my government told me.

You and Harry can have fun with this. It probably is true, and my comment about where is the conspiracy is real....Where is the beef?

 

[financeguy]

Ummmmm....I could really have saved myself a lot of time and money with the amount of research I have done on Kennedy if I believed everything my government told me.

You and Harry can have fun with this. It probably is true, and my comment about where is the conspiracy is real....Where is the beef?

The beef is, individual journalists and researchers that made claims about the existence of Operation Gladio were initially treated as cranks, loons and freaks.

And then subsequently various government ministers came out and said, after all, that Operation Gladio DID exist.

So, effectively, we had a conspiracy theory that 'went mainstream' and became generally accepted, more or less.

It's a legitimate and worthwhile point, in my opinion.

 

[Dreadsox]

I guess we have a different view of what a conspiracy is....

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-se
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

Main Entry: 1plot
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'plät
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English
1 a : a small area of planted ground <a vegetable plot> b : a small piece of land in a cemetery c : a measured piece of land : LOT
2 : GROUND PLAN , PLAT
3 : the plan or main story of a literary work
4 : a secret plan for accomplishing a usually evil or unlawful end : INTRIGUE
5 : a graphic representation (as a chart)

To me it seems it is a group of people working to accomplish something evil or unlawful.

How is this evil or unlawful? I guess that is what I am missing. I see this as history, and if the evidence is theere, pretty informative information about the depths of the cold war.

I guess that is why I feel the way I do about this. I admit, I do not know enough about it, and find wiki to be less than a scholarly source, but a good jump off point

 

[financeguy]

A conspiracy I would more or less define as the first definition cited of 'the act of conspiring together', I wouldn't define it as 'a group of people working to accomplish something evil or unlawful'.

It looks to me that you think that I'm suggesting there was something evil or wrong about fighting the Cold War, which I most certainly am not.

 

[Dreadsox]

A conspiracy I would more or less define as the first definition cited of 'the act of conspiring together', I wouldn't define it as 'a group of people working to accomplish something evil or unlawful'.

It looks to me that you think that I'm suggesting there was something evil or wrong about fighting the Cold War, which I most certainly am not.

No, I am not. I am saying, that it does not fit what I consider to be a conspiracy.

All governments conduct intelligence, counter intelligence operations ect....I think what happens is that we have situations in which CONSPIRACIES are alleged due to the nature of intelligence networks trying to keep their means and operatives protected.

I do not understand why this is not a wow, look at this, there were groups set up to provide resistance should the soviet union take over.

That to me is more of wow, look what history has revealed to us finally.

I think this will be the case in many instances. Be it, documents and information witheld to provide assets, surveillance equipment ect.

I am not attacking you or your position. I just do not think it a conspiracy.

 

[BVS]

Anytime you want to actually DISCUSS an issue....

Anytime you want to start a thread that doesn't attack, but actually leaves an issue up for discussion be my guest...

As far as the issue, I said I'm going to need to do some research.

 

[financeguy]

No, I am not. I am saying, that it does not fit what I consider to be a conspiracy.

All governments conduct intelligence, counter intelligence operations ect....I think what happens is that we have situations in which CONSPIRACIES are alleged due to the nature of intelligence networks trying to keep their means and operatives protected.

I do not understand why this is not a wow, look at this, there were groups set up to provide resistance should the soviet union take over.

That to me is more of wow, look what history has revealed to us finally.

I think this will be the case in many instances. Be it, documents and information witheld to provide assets, surveillance equipment ect.

I see your point and indeed largely agree with you.

I am not attacking you or your position. I just do not think it a conspiracy.

But surely, it is the very essence of conspiracy to remain hidden, and this operation did indeed remain hidden from the broader populace and the mass media for a longish period of time - and for good and legitimate reasons.

Of course, there are conspiracies towards good ends and conspiracies towards evil ends. I consider this in the former category.

 

[Dreadsox]

I suppose there can be a conspiracy to do good.....It just does not fill with some of the statements about the forum.....

I would venture there are not many that belive in a conspiracy to do good.....many would applaud that type of conspiracy.

 

[financeguy]

Anytime you want to start a thread that doesn't attack, but actually leaves an issue up for discussion be my guest...

If you interpret a generalised comment on the forum - which I would freely admit is no more than a subjective value judgement, which may or may not be objectively true - as an ATTACK, and if you prefer to focus on that throwaway, not particularly important comment, rather than discussing the actual subject then that's your lookout...

But if a leftwing poster says that all opponents of gay marriage on FYM, or indeed all Republican voters on FYM, are motivated by bigotry, you wouldn't object now, would you? But, again, it's a value judgement.

Double standard, much?

As far as the issue, I said I'm going to need to do some research.

I am glad to hear it. It is an interesting subject, in my view.

 

[Dreadsox]

then that's your lookout...

But if a leftwing poster says that all opponents of gay marriage on FYM, or indeed all Republican voters on FYM, are motivated by bigotry, you wouldn't object now, would you? But, again, it's a value judgement.

Double standard, much?


.

You know I have been complaining about the treatment of the right in the forum, yet, I do not agree you can equate the belief in conspiracy with being gay.

 

[BVS]

But if a leftwing poster says that all opponents of gay marriage on FYM, or indeed all Republican voters on FYM, are motivated by bigotry, you wouldn't object now, would you? But, again, it's a value judgement.

Double standard, much?

You're missing my point. All I'm saying is that when starting a thread you would get a lot more responses by not starting on the offensive.

Several of your threads start with, "but of course FYM won't..." or something to that extent, and you've been called out on it by others as well. Sometimes it seems like you really don't want a discussion but just and excuse to frame an attack or bait.

 

[indra]

Several of your threads start with, "but of course FYM won't..." or something to that extent, and you've been called out on it by others as well. Sometimes it seems like you really don't want a discussion but just and excuse to frame an attack or bait.

You do realise you'd be better off not taking the bait, don't you? Why, if you feel some people's posts are always trollish, do you always seem to respond? You know this thread would have pretty much died without your posts.

 

[financeguy]

You know this thread would have pretty much died without your posts.

No it wouldn't.

I'd have kept bumping it.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

The exception doesn't make the rule. Just because some conspiracy theories are right, and are true, doesn't mean they all are, or even most. That said, the opposite (just because some news coverage, press releases, government positions, etc) isn't necessarily the case either. If there were overwhelming evidence, which actually constituted verifiable sources both quantifiable and qualitative and a case that isn't wholly circumstantial, then there'd be a higher likelihood of it being believed by a larger group of people, conspiracy theory or common experience. Some people are too skeptical for their own good, and some not skeptical enough.

If this particular theory fits into the latter, and actually has validation and merit, then all the better. I don't think it would surprise anyone to learn that Russia's ambitions spread beyond the parts of Eastern Europe that they seized while marching to Berlin, though, so I can't really say that I'm surprised that there were plans made to counter any offensives -- moreover, I can't say I'm surprised that it wouldn't be public knowledge, either. Some sort of secret war would by no means be out of character for the cold-war era, which saw lots of tumult, chaos, and questionable-at-best conflicts. That the actions of the KGB and such would be played up and vilified more than an allied/American force doesn't surprise me either. I'm not going to buy into the whole thing based on a Wikipedia article, but it certainly seems more credible even just on the surface of things than something like 'no man on the moon' or 'it would have taken 100 seconds for the towers to fall' sorts of spurious conspiracies.

 

[BVS]

You do realise you'd be better off not taking the bait, don't you? Why, if you feel some people's posts are always trollish, do you always seem to respond? You know this thread would have pretty much died without your posts.

I really was trying to be as cordial as I could and just point out that he may want to re-think his approach if he truly wants a discussion.