I've created a conspiracy theory. Plausible or not?

[Jeremy1]

I have a theory. Before Sharon had his stroke, my theory is that he had a plan to have Benjamin Netanyahu become elected PM. When Netanyahu quit the finance minister position over disagreement with Sharons pullout, it was clearly too late to do anything to affect change. IMO it was simply a symbolic gesture. So why did he do it? My theory is that Sharon wanted him to resign and take this hardline stance. Sharon then would create the Kadima party which in my opinion guarantees a Netanyahu win of PM. After election Netanyahu would/will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran all the while leaving Sharon to look like this great peacemaker. Netanyahu would be like " see, this pullout caused this great rise in tension. The pullout caused this, the pullout caused that. I was against it since the begining". When in reality, both Sharon and Netanyahu were/are on the same page granted some posturing between the two.

Please note, that I believe that the strike would happen somewhere around March, not far after the election. Also something to note, this would be around the same time that Iran would consider opening it's oil borse threatening the us petro dollar and pegging oil to the Euro.

Plausible or not? Discuss.

[Dr Triceps]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

I have a theory. Before Sharon had his stroke, my theory is that he had a plan to have Benjamin Netanyahu become elected PM. When Netanyahu quit the finance minister position over disagreement with Sharons pullout, it was clearly too late to do anything to affect change. IMO it was simply a symbolic gesture. So why did he do it? My theory is that Sharon wanted him to resign and take this hardline stance. Sharon then would create the Kadima party which in my opinion guarantees a Netanyahu win of PM. After election Netanyahu would/will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran all the while leaving Sharon to look like this great peacemaker. Netanyahu would be like " see, this pullout caused this great rise in tension. The pullout caused this, the pullout caused that. I was against it since the begining". When in reality, both Sharon and Netanyahu were/are on the same page granted some posturing between the two.

Please note, that I believe that the strike would happen somewhere around March, not far after the election. Also something to note, this would be around the same time that Iran would consider opening it's oil borse threatening the us petro dollar and pegging oil to the Euro.

Plausible or not? Discuss.

You never know when you mix politics with religion. You could be right. I just want them to get it over with. Have a damn war, have a winner and shut the hell up...

[Hartski]

He never had a stroke. He's in the lab getting cloned so they'll have him as the PM forever! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr Triceps]

Originally Posted by Hartski

He never had a stroke. He's in the lab getting cloned so they'll have him as the PM forever! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They better put the clone on a diet. Maybe he should log on to bodybuilding.com for some tips...

[KhanPaulsen]

Originally Posted by Dr Triceps

They better put the clone on a diet. Maybe he should log on to bodybuilding.com for some tips...

This is not a good place for tips in general, 90% of the people here have no clue how to properly eat themselves.

[Skrape]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

I have a theory. Before Sharon had his stroke, my theory is that he had a plan to have Benjamin Netanyahu become elected PM. When Netanyahu quit the finance minister position over disagreement with Sharons pullout, it was clearly too late to do anything to affect change. IMO it was simply a symbolic gesture. So why did he do it? My theory is that Sharon wanted him to resign and take this hardline stance. Sharon then would create the Kadima party which in my opinion guarantees a Netanyahu win of PM. After election Netanyahu would/will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran all the while leaving Sharon to look like this great peacemaker. Netanyahu would be like " see, this pullout caused this great rise in tension. The pullout caused this, the pullout caused that. I was against it since the begining". When in reality, both Sharon and Netanyahu were/are on the same page granted some posturing between the two.

Please note, that I believe that the strike would happen somewhere around March, not far after the election. Also something to note, this would be around the same time that Iran would consider opening it's oil borse threatening the us petro dollar and pegging oil to the Euro.

Plausible or not? Discuss.

It might have been plausible if Sharon's new party, Kadima, didn't have the support that they currently have. The last time I checked Kadima was the favorite to be elected in March, even with Ehud Olmert currently replacing Ariel Sharon.

[Dr Triceps]

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

This is not a good place for tips in general, 90% of the people here have no clue how to properly eat themselves.

You are right. I've been lifting my whole life without really dieting. I joined this forum to learn more about it and found there were 50 different answers to one question...wait a minute, we're getting off-topic..ooops. Back to Sharon...

[Hartski]

Originally Posted by KhanPaulsen

90% of the people here have no clue how to properly eat themselves.

I don't know how to eat myself, either. Do you start with your toes and work your way up or something?

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by Skrape

It might have been plausible if Sharon's new party, Kadima, didn't have the support that they currently have. The last time I checked Kadima was the favorite to be elected in March, even with Ehud Olmert currently replacing Ariel Sharon.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't buy polls until I see the final results. Remember, polls had socialist candidate A winning over socialist candidate B but the final results were anything but that outcome. I realize that democrat lemmings will say that Bush stole the election, but I have yet to see such evidence. Ayways, back to Israel. Even if Olmert would win, my theory still remains that they will pre-emptively strike Iran, but I still predict an outcome of which Netanyahu will be the winner. Israel needs someone of strength with the capability to govern and it seems that Netanyahu fits that mold the most, especially since once being PM.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

I have a theory. Before Sharon had his stroke, my theory is that he had a plan to have Benjamin Netanyahu become elected PM. When Netanyahu quit the finance minister position over disagreement with Sharons pullout, it was clearly too late to do anything to affect change. IMO it was simply a symbolic gesture. So why did he do it? My theory is that Sharon wanted him to resign and take this hardline stance. Sharon then would create the Kadima party which in my opinion guarantees a Netanyahu win of PM. After election Netanyahu would/will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran all the while leaving Sharon to look like this great peacemaker. Netanyahu would be like " see, this pullout caused this great rise in tension. The pullout caused this, the pullout caused that. I was against it since the begining". When in reality, both Sharon and Netanyahu were/are on the same page granted some posturing between the two.

Please note, that I believe that the strike would happen somewhere around March, not far after the election. Also something to note, this would be around the same time that Iran would consider opening it's oil borse threatening the us petro dollar and pegging oil to the Euro.

Plausible or not? Discuss.

Here are the problems I see.

1) Netanyahu is a lifelong hardliner who was ideologically opposed to the pullout. That is why he resigned. It was a public gesture, this happens all the time.

2) I don't know if you've pay attention to this stuff, but the Kadima party has had a very significant lead in all the polls since it was created. A likud victory is in actuality, the least likely of outcomes.

3) There was no guarantee that Netanyahu would even win the Likud nomination.

4) If this was in fact their plan, then why would 1/3 or more of the Likud MK's have shifted to the Kadima party and thrown their weight behind it?

5) Where is the benefit? Who gains from this? Sharon certainly doesn't, his legacy as a peace-maker will be ruined if everybody sees the disengagement as contributing to "rising tensions" now. So why would he want this?

6) What is accomplished with this needlessly complicated plot? Why wouldn't they just go through with regular elections, then have the winner strike Iran anyways? What does this plot serve that couldn't be served otherwise? Why go through the hassle of creating a whole new political party? Why further polarize the nation?


None of this makes any sense I'm sorry to say. Mostly because the Kadima party has essentially secured a victory (unless a series of unforunate events falls upon them), the Likud party, in the last poll I read, was trailing with only 13 seats, to Labor's 17 and Kadima's 40. And this is after the stroke, there is no doubt Sharon's stroke only weakened Kadima.

Like most-all conspiracy theories, I find yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sorry, my 2 cents.

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

Here are the problems I see.

1) Netanyahu is a lifelong hardliner who was ideologically opposed to the pullout. That is why he resigned. It was a public gesture, this happens all the time.

Him being a hardliner is one of the reasons I have predicted him to wim.

Originally Posted by A & B

2) I don't know if you've pay attention to this stuff, but the Kadima party has had a very significant lead in all the polls since it was created. A likud victory is in actuality, the least likely of outcomes.

I hear you, but like I said earlier, I don't buy into polls until the end results.

Originally Posted by A & B

3) There was no guarantee that Netanyahu would even win the Likud nomination.

True, but who else? He was once PM, so I think he has the advantage over all others.

Originally Posted by A & B

4) If this was in fact their plan, then why would 1/3 or more of the Likud MK's have shifted to the Kadima party and thrown their weight behind it?

Good point.

Originally Posted by A & B

5) Where is the benefit? Who gains from this? Sharon certainly doesn't, his legacy as a peace-maker will be ruined if everybody sees the disengagement as contributing to "rising tensions" now. So why would he want this?

Another good point, except I was thinkng that Sharon would still look the peaceful man from simply trying for peace.

Originally Posted by A & B

6) What is accomplished with this needlessly complicated plot? Why wouldn't they just go through with regular elections, then have the winner strike Iran anyways? What does this plot serve that couldn't be served otherwise? Why go through the hassle of creating a whole new political party? Why further polarize the nation?

I felt the new party would not be able to get the votes for PM thus giving it to Likud.

Originally Posted by A & B

None of this makes any sense I'm sorry to say. Mostly because the Kadima party has essentially secured a victory (unless a series of unforunate events falls upon them), the Likud party, in the last poll I read, was trailing with only 13 seats, to Labor's 17 and Kadima's 40. And this is after the stroke, there is no doubt Sharon's stroke only weakened Kadima.

I haven't seen the polls, but I believe what you have written. I still will hold out until the final outcome.

Originally Posted by A & B

Like most-all conspiracy theories, I find yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sorry, my 2 cents.

It's all good. I just wanted some feedback for plausability or the lack thereof. Thanks.

[A & B]

I always like reading conspiracy theories you know.

While I don't really buy into many of them, we do live in a conspiratorial world. It's best to be aware of this, because you know as the saying goes... "Just because you're paranoid and neurotic, doesn't mean that somebody isn't trying to kill you."

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

I always like reading conspiracy theories you know.

While I don't really buy into many of them, we do live in a conspiratorial world. It's best to be aware of this, because you know as the saying goes... "Just because you're paranoid and neurotic, doesn't mean that somebody isn't trying to kill you."

I like reading them also, and like you I don't buy into most either except for the biggest of all and that is world government or NWO. A lot of people think I'm nut's and maybe I am, at least I hope I am for the sake of american sovereignty. Anyways, another saying is "The most important task of a conspiracy is to convince it's victims that their is no conspiracy."

[A & B]

I still don't understand what the point of this conspiracy would have been?

Just to preserve some of Sharon's integrity as a man of peace, while allowing Netanyahu to hit Iran?

Why wouldn't Sharon simply resign himself and allow Netanyahu to win the elections for Likud?

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

Just to preserve some of Sharon's integrity as a man of peace, while allowing Netanyahu to hit Iran?

Exactly

Originally Posted by A & B

Why wouldn't Sharon simply resign himself and allow Netanyahu to win the elections for Likud?

By creating a third party if you will, It would have been intended to guarantee a Likud victory.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

Exactly


By creating a third party if you will, It would have been intended to guarantee a Likud victory.

So it just came as a huge surprise to them all that the Kadima party accumulated massive support, while support for Likud dimished to it's lowest in recent history?

Explain to me how creating a third party would have strengthened the Likud position, I don't understand.

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

So it just came as a huge surprise to them all that the Kadima party accumulated massive support, while support for Likud dimished to it's lowest in recent history?

Yes, assuming that will remain until election day.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

Yes, assuming that will remain until election day.

Ok, but I still don't understand how the creation of the Kadima party was supposed to gather more support for Likud? How was that supposed to work?

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

Explain to me how creating a third party would have strengthened the Likud position, I don't understand.

My thought is that a third party wouldn't be able to garnish the support from the faithfull who vote labour or Likud. Similiar to here in the states with the democrats and republicans. While people would like to have a change, they simply would vote party line with the majority going to Likud.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

My thought is that a third party wouldn't be able to garnish the support from the faithfull who vote labour or Likud. Similiar to here in the states with the democrats and republicans. While people would like to have a change, they simply would vote party line with the majority going to Likud.

So if Kadima wouldn't be able to garnish support, then what would that change anything? If people would vote for the party lines anyways, with the majority going to Likud, how would a third party change anything at all?

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

So if Kadima wouldn't be able to garnish support, then what would that change anything? If people would vote for the party lines anyways, with the majority going to Likud, how would a third party change anything at all?

It wouldn't. It would simply save face for Sharon as a peacemaker. Kadima is a a more moderate party which would siphon votes away from Labour if any, but not enough to defeat Likud, thus leaving majority to Likud.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

It wouldn't. It would simply save face for Sharon as a peacemaker. Kadima is a a more moderate party which would siphon votes away from Labour if any, but not enough to defeat Likud, thus leaving majority to Likud.

Ok, fair enough.

But do you really think that Sharon and Netanyahu (two politicians with extensive experience, who know the workings of Israeli society and politics better than most) both completely misjudged Israeli society? Do you think they're both so incompetent? Do you think Sharon didn't realize how much of a central figure he was?

Anyways, your answers satisfied my curiosity.

Thanks for humouring me.

[Jeremy1]

Originally Posted by A & B

But do you really think that Sharon and Netanyahu (two politicians with extensive experience, who know the workings of Israeli society and politics better than most) both completely misjudged Israeli society? Do you think they're both so incompetent? Do you think Sharon didn't realize how much of a central figure he was?

All I can say is take a look at your own leaders and ask those questions. I know I have for ours, and the answers to them all are a resounding yes.

Originally Posted by A & B

Anyways, your answers satisfied my curiosity.

Cool.

Originally Posted by A & B

Thanks for humouring me.

No problem.