"Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal"

So you've got: 1) something that was proposed but never happened 2) Al-Qaeda attacking the US 3) this ?

How you made a leap from terrorists attacked the US therefore the US is very corrupt I have no idea, complete non-sequitur.

A non-sequitur for sure, but the volume of - often declassified - such acts from the U.S. government often makes it hard to dismiss conspiracies out of hand.

Operation Northwoods is often cited because of how impossibly evil it is - that it was dismissed by the president should be noteworthy less for its dismissal and more for the fact that it made it to the president's desk.

There are obviously others, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, for example, that demonstrate that large agencies sometimes work outside the boundaries of logical, empathetic human response.

I will not comment on the latter 2, but operation Northwoods is a reasonably scary precedent.

The important fact is not that Kennedy rejected the proposal but rather that it made it through the higher levels of command at all. What happens when the US has a president that is not so adverse to carrying out false flag attacks on it's own and other neutral actor's citizens.

9/11 was inside job http://www.ae911truth.org/

9/11 was proposed and happened.

Edit: What about Iraq wars. Iraq always was like "okay you can look wherever you want". Iraq had nothing to do with so called Al-Qaeda. Neither with mass destruction weapons.

> 9/11 was inside job http://www.ae911truth.org/

A quick glance at that website suggests it's full of inaccuracies, so it's best to avoid it.

> 9/11 was proposed and happened.

9/11 was proposed by Al-Qaeda and done by Al-Qaeda.

You can't just cognitively bias something into existence.

From a few days ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-bursting-pain-over-pakistan-s...

"The guns that we have taken up against Allah's enemy America and its pet rulers and slave army should not be aimed towards children, women and our Muslim people," he added.

I guess the recently setup south Asian chapter of Al-Qaeda is also the US government as well?

Furthermore can you explain to me why Al'Qaeda wouldn't want to attack the US?

Many people around the world believe 9/11 was an inside job, and even that Al-Quaeda, as an organization, was essentially manufactured through the CIA through its control of the American media, as a false-flag pretense for war. Presumably, the Sony hack is the beginning of another such false-flag pretense. North Korea is part of the "Axis of Evil," which is essentially nothing more than the US' own kill list for sovereign nations it doesn't like. One must assume that some sort of war with Iran and North Korea are inevitable, so long as the US has the power to do so.

It's only a non-sequitur if you don't believe the CIA has orchestrated, either directly or indirectly, most major political events around the world in the last 20 years, and nearly every, if not every, war since Desert Storm. Otherwise, the connections are obvious, especially after Snowden.

Yet it seems that even you believe such a conspiracy theory to be ridiculous given that you are making this post from a throwaway account.

It may be ridiculous, but given what the world now knows about the way the US operates, it's also plausible.

"Plausible" means "seeming reasonable or probable." I don't think it is plausible at all. I think you meant "possible", but, of course, almost any crackpot theory is "possible".

Is it actually less plausible than the story currently being presented by the FBI and the media?

The US fabricated the case for war against Iraq. There was no yellowcake, there were no WMDs. And it's known that the NSA has programs in play to attempt to influence popular opinion through social media sites, and propaganda. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the US might hack Sony in order to win popular and political support for either a military action against a perceived enemy, or some kind of domestic "security" crackdown, or something which would otherwise be politically unpopular.

The least plausible argument here seems to be the one the US is presenting, and the most plausible is that the US is responsible.

Well, yes, I think it is orders of magnitude less plausible as it is not plausible at all. I am also unaware of any evidence, circumstantial or not, that the US has fabricated the Sony attack. An invented incentive is not motive, which is what I assume you to be referencing as circumstantial evidence.

There has been no talk of military action, nor do I see an upside for the US to undertake any. Basically, your argument is "The US doesn't like NK, so the attack most likely a conspiracy of the US government." Using that line of reasoning I can list off at least twenty other countries who are equally as likely to have pulled off the attack.

Sure, none of us have proof that it was NK, and I have my doubts as well, but expecting the US to hand over all evidence is naive and shows a lack of understanding as to how such evidence may be obtained.

I'd also like to hear your reasoning for the statement:

"The least plausible argument here seems to be the one the US is presenting"

NK is the _least_ plausible explanation? Really? How so? And then:

"and the most plausible is that the US is responsible"

Again, how so? What is the motive hear? You think that the Fed likes the idea of movies being pulled over a vague threat? Honestly, you come off as a complete tin-foil hat wearer and you have yet to provide a compelling argument for such large claims. You obviously don't like the US government, which is fine. They certainly provide enough reason to do so based upon things we _know_ to be true. However, you are making a huge logical leap here and your position is simply intellectually lazy.