Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by bajabum, Feb 19, 2011.
Is Google a CIA front? I'm not sure. Perhaps we should google it.
I Google'd it and it said "Nuhh, uhhh! Yahoo! is teh ebil!" So...I guess not.
Surely Google is too succesful to be an intelligence front. But if I knew for sure that it was, would that deter me from getting a Google phone? Probably not, but if I were a US taxpayer I would want a discount.
Apparently the author of the article does not know a lot about the CIA! LOL
And anyway... given Google's business I'd expect they'd be aligned closer to the NSA than the CIA.
Infowars. Surely, a highly reputable source of information...
So when will Michael Moore make the movie?
The GOP has no shortage of unelectable candidate wanna-be's. I'm hoping Michelle Bachmann is on the ticket.
Google a CIA front? naa
I'm sure that even they realized that the Muslim Brotherhood is really a Muslim organization.
No, its not a CIA front, thats silly. Its founded by Ra
Not the CIA. The NSA. Considering Google heads played a role in overthrowing Mubarek, you have to wonder.
What the hell are Google Executives doing causing/feeding insurrections in foreign nations??
Wael Said Abbas Ghonim was actively involved in inciting insurrection. He is a Head of Marketing exec for Google and was on the ground in Egypt.
That's a little different than someone using an iphone to update their facebook status.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the CIA funded Google's startup. One of their own guys even came out and put it on record.. some ex-CIA agent.. Steele was his last name I think. Regardless, it is pretty obvious they're working together through the Recorded Future program to do real-time monitoring of everyone on the web. If you really need any insight, just look into Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel.
But I just have to laugh at all the sheeple who write everything off as a nubjob conspiracy theory because they don't know the facts and feel threatened that they didn't hear of something first. lulz.. sad. Expand your knowledge, and listening to CNN/FOX/MSNBC/CBS isn't going to do that for you. Pentagon-crafted news stories are pretty pathetic in general.
A few of us tend to write things off because the sources given are laughable, defy logic, are mathematically impossible, or we reference the actual raw data that is not filtered through the conspiracy filter.
The Recorded Future program was started by Google and the CIA, if you believe CBS, but that does not mean the CIA funded Google. Or am I missing your point?
Well, we are waiting to hear if Oliver Stone accepts our offer before we ask Moore.
Actually, the CIA is a front for the Ministry of Silly Walks, not Google.
Yeah, you're missing the point. You are like one of those people that claim OMG PHOTOSHOP on every picture someone posts. You can never prove anything in reality. Someone will always claim the opposite grounds. The amount of proof one one side or the other makes the difference. Since we have numerous sources including our own government saying they work together, it is obvious in this case.
Actually, Google secretly funds the CIA, not the other way around. I read about it on a sketchy web site so it must be true. If you don't believe it, you're a sheep.
lol @ 1st year philosophy students..
We have a CIA agent saying they were partnered and funded startup, we have the department of defense announcing further partnerships using defense budget funding, and we have proof via payroll sheets that they obtained CIA money through Keyhole and In-Q-Tel.. etc.
Throw out a few more red herrings for the lulz.
I do not know if at first glance an image has been modified or it it is accurate. About all I can do is guess that it might be fraudulent based upon my knowledge and a little common sense. I know is Photoshop is widely used to change images, and how they are changed depends upon the goals of the poster. This means we must view some images with a fair amount of healthy skepticism.
By the way, I know Elvis is dead, Martians did not create a face on Mars, perpetual motion does not exist; can't exist in fact, and Oswald was the only one firing a gun that fateful day.
I also know when someone starts quoting some sources, those people can be often discounted to some extent because the source is known to be unreliable or just plain wrong.
I also know when I want the truth, there are ways to find it using legitimate sources and I also know that some things are hard to confirm, so you must trust the person making the claims. Serious research takes time and Wikepedia does not hold the answers in most cases.
If you believe something, great. Be happy and soar with the eagles. If you post it, however, prepare for a few requests for sources. No sources, then prepare to be doubted and do not get mad if you are. Not unreasonable, is it?
I suggest you press for the truth, then. It sounds like you've done no research. I'll let you discover sources on your own, without my influence. You'll subconsciously come to the same conclusion as I did, but you'll consciously argue against it. It is just your nature because you don't want to know the truth, nor accept controversy as reality.
Aw Yes . . . there it is. The ever popular "Well, you are just going to have to believe me and find the sources on your own" reply. Good way to disagree, argue, and avoid posting a few sources.