Talk:FEMA concentration camps/Archive1

FEMA
What does FEMA stand for? - User   03:08, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, good call. I'll link it and write up a stub. Thanks for the sysopping by the way! Viscount 03:21, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Google
For some reason google has picked this up as a high return for "fema camps" and we are getting a lot of traffic to it. Worth working on if people want. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You say it is not true, but where is your evidence?
You discuss the fact that this is all hoopla- which i am open minded to all _opinions_. Where is your evidence showing that this is all just made-up from a crazy mind and has no truth? If you did your homework, you would find many such details like the real effects of flouride and what is was used for in the past, while it's being put into water systems around the U.S. - Ignorence is a bliss. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 165.155.208.75 / talk / contribs
 * Some of us are chemists, also, where is yours? Nowwhat? 16:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've investigated the extent of FEMA's legal authority to conduct any of the activities within its mandate and looked at the small amount of purported evidence wingnuts advance in favor of this execrable conspiracy theory. If you can't come up with anything new, go back to Ruby Ridge and count your bullets and cans of soup. 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

is it incumbent on the critic to re-write the article for you if he's correctly pointed out a lack of proper rebuttal? research by proclamation + logical fallacies + "wingnut" (checkmate) = rational?

aleftbrainedahole


 * It is incumbent on wingnuts to provide evidence beyond "you can't say that this isn't true". ORavenhurst (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some unhappy BoN, one year later
Still it kind of sucks when you look for some easy copypastable well sourced rebuttal for these claims and all you find is a half-assed parody site. If I wanted someone's attempt at humor I would have just gone to conservapedia in the first place. I can see why someone finding this site off google would be disappointed at it being a few guys making fun of crackpots rather than an easy collection of debunking material as the name implies. - For anyone else who got here like I did the camps are real but most of the map locations are bogus. They have been officially acknowledged and do not have any sinister internment purpose, merely a facility to house people displaced by natural disaster. Although the plans have existed for some time hurricane katrina gave extra government incentive. Do not link this article to any delusional family members as it will only make you look like an ignorant dope and serve to reaffirm their belief. 14:00, 11 June 2013‎

Reptilian Overlords and\or the Grays
Its well know that there are vast underground bases used by the Greys and the Reptilian Overlords. One of these is under Denver Airport. These bases may or may not tie into the Hollow Earth groups under Mt Shasta and in Tibet and India. Hamster (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

BoN
W A R N I N G - Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone. -	-	Comment: So, no invasion of privacy, here. Right? Which explains more than this whole entry does, as regards the actual reason for these empty camps, -	while our prisons overflow and they let "lesser offenders" / criminals and illegals go free. At least, offer the TRUTH, even if your own dose of ALTERNATIVE cures, naturally. -	(( Oh, that's right. The FDA doesn't permit. So sorry! )) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.222.7.172 / talk / contribs


 * Hate to break it to certain people, but the internet operates on IP addresses. Every time you load and request even the simplest piece of html a server is logging and noticing and tracking your IP address so that it can send the information to the right place rather than somewhere else in Electronic Magic Land. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's just impossible to work otherwise - some of these nutters are like saying "send me something by post, but I'm not going to give you my house number or PO box because that's a breach of privacy". Stay inside, never go out, never plug anything into the sockets in your walls, your privacy depends on it! Scarlet A.pngnarchist 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But if you own a house you ARE ON RECORD! the only viable solution is to go hide in a cave somewhere in the wilderness of northern canada or siberia--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're BORN you're on record. So it's best not to be born at all, or just kill yourself when you're old enough. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Home childbirth in the cave. Never let the child leave the compund. Never have any visitors. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable?
What do we do with this edit? Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go back in time and change it back. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of President Obama, however I am offended that the writer of this article assumes all opponents are conspiracy theorists! Could the bias in this article be removed? it would mak a much more persuasive essay then.
 * I've changed it from "opponents of the Obama administration" to "the more insane opponents of the Obama administration". I'm sure that not all of Obama's opponents believe this stuff.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rationalizing
What I have yet to hear about in regards to this is the extensive legislation and executive orders which have been implemented that seem to be in tandem with the given FEMA camp situation. Let me be perfectly clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist; I'm a man of evidence. Fact is, the DHS (FEMA) has purchased over 1.2 billion rounds of ammunition for no apparent reason, not to mention the 3,000 military grade armored trucks-- let me remind you this is all for domestic use. Now, the most important detail which no one seems to have mentioned on this supposedly "rational" page, is the US Army's Field Manual 3-39.40. The document was processed in 2010 and leaked to various public sources a few months ago. It basically outlines the standard procedures for "internment" of Americans-- It even calls for the gathering of social security numbers (something never before seen in similar military documents, so the argument that this is "business as usual" doesn't hold much leverage), plans for keeping mothers and children together (they're planning to intern children?), an extensive section on PSYOPS which includes the drugging and "rehabilitation" of "political dissidents" (yes, in those words)so your statement that their targeting political activists as ludicrous, is in and of itself without merit. It's right here in the document. And finally, FM 3-39.40 outlines the use of deadly force for "ongoing escape attempts" which pretty much drives the argument that these are benign disaster relief facilities into the mud. When you look at the legislation in place for the indefinite containment of US citizens during "times of crisis" (to be determined as to what that entails) without any form of due process, the DHS procuring enough ammunition to fight a 20+ year war, the outlined plans of the US Military for the "internment" of its own citizens, AND that there are in fact several hundred full-scale maximum security style prisons being erected all throughout the nation it becomes all too clear that something is, in fact, happening. Not a conspiracy theorist, just a man of evidence. This page has been far from "rational". I have seen many "debunkings" of this current theory, all have been shaky in the way of real info. But none have been so insulting as this page. Just how stupid do you think I am? Pay attention already.69.174.58.20 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing to our attention the need to update the article. Meanwhile, you can read this thread on the JREF forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235585 --ZooGuard (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I like how this article is categorized as bullshit. Seriously, if I'm here, that's because I wanted to have real info. Just as the first writer of this section, I am a man of evidence. And, although you write a bunch of the conspiracy theorists' argument, there is absolutly nothing here (except the obvious position of the writer on this subject and his non-stop insults to people that don't see what he sees) that tries to make me think it's not real. It seems that you're only argument against it is that you should be a loopy conspiracy theorist to believe this. Now you may say that someone who comes with a big revelation should have the burden to prove it true, and you would be right. But taking position on something you can't know is not rationality. The problem I have with your article though(and the name of this site), is that I never saw rationality in this article. Only easy sophisms. You ridiculize every argument without any counter-argument, only opinion. Why not just burn the corpses Nazi-style?)  nice counter-argument, very rational...  In addition to the implausibility of such a massive conspiracy being kept totally silent,[3] the evidence is damaged by the fact that the videos and pictures actually depict everything from National Guard training centers to Amtrak repair stations to North Korean labor camps. This implausibility is again another statement without argument. It's not because you think it is implausible that everybody will think it implausible nor that it isn't true. It is only damaged if you can't dissociate them. Facts will always be facts, but their interpretations will always change. And, seriously, you are not in a position to critic people that would portrait their own interpretation to prove their point of view.  the more insane opponents of the Obama administration. This one is.. wow. Very rational and fact-verified statement. Yeah, right... You've verified the mental health of everyone that believe it to be true? I'll stop there, I won't go though all this article. But, thats why you don't put your own opinion in an article. Because it can be too easily demolished. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't have an opinion or that you're wrong to believe everyone that believe this to be insane. It just means that you shouldn't write it there. Whats really fascinating me though, is that even though a lot of people took the time to write down how biased this article is, no one from this site seems to thinks that impartiality should be mandatory to rationality or, at least, modify this article to give it some credibility. This is quite disturbing coming from a site that call itself rational wiki...
 * Can you expand on this in greater detail, so that we can respond properly? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To the OP: First off, drink. Second, the whole thing was | thoroughly disproven. Third, if you're making a claim that is counter-intuitive to the evidence, then it's up to you, and ONLY YOU, to prove your statement correct. Citing InfoWars or whatever other clap-trap of wrongness you subscribe to doesn't count. TokenSkepticMagician Talk, comments, and 'UR a fag lol's 9:08 Jan 31 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Tex an, why not talk to us here?
I cut the following from the top of the article:
 * FEMA Camps are something that truly exists, the question lies in what the actual purpose is.
 * Here is a video of Jesse Ventura interviewing Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee.
 * http://youtu.be/S7IHJx5V9yk

This is a place to discuss it, instead of continuing an edit war. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC) So, we're here. At this place of discussion, and now all of a sudden nobody wants to discuss it? When you were undoing my edits literally less than a minute after posting them? Tex an (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, nice to meet you.
Here's my issue, the page is full of attacks, "from one crank to another" ..."particularly loopy bunch of conspiracy theorists"...Come on, what kind of discussion does that provoke? You're certainly TELLING people what to think of the situation without bringing any of the evidence to the table.

When you google "FEMA CAMPS" your page comes up almost at the top, Seems like you guys are some underground propagandists to me.


 * We certainly are telling people the truth about the non-existent FEMA concentration camps, yes. There's no reputable evidence they exist. There is evidence that they don't exist - in that every attempt to note their existence has been proven to be ludicrously false. Is there any reputable, non refuted evidence they exist? Hipo crite 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite, I'm glad you asked. If you spend just a couple minutes googling, you can see videos of people approaching these camps, you can even see one where he uses a propelled parachute to fly near by for a bird's eye view. Here Is a video, http://youtu.be/S7IHJx5V9yk skip to 1:38 to see an interview with Congressman Cohen who is a co-sponsor of the bill that called for them to be built.


 * The bill does not call for "concentration camps" to be built. Videos of people walking up to fenced military installations are not evidence for anything except that fenced military installations exist. Hipo crite 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, they call for "Residence Centers". If someone wanted to follow in Hitler's footsteps, I highly doubt they'd actually label them "Concentration Camps". Think. Just a little. Tex an (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Welp, we've gotten to Godwin at a record clip this time around. Tex, either you haven't been around the internet very long, or you're trolling. Much as I'd love to be proven wrong, I think I'm done here. Now it's up to you to dig your way out of this self-excavated hole and see if you can convince the others that you still have all the marbles you were issued at birth. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You literally just said nothing in terms of whether they exist or not, how they would be named or whatever, and just skipped to "You've lost your marbles." You can't make a logical argument, I'm not saying there aren't logical arguments out there, I'm saying you are incapable of culminating one. Tex an (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Tex:
 * Thanks, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

K, thank you for the tips. I'd like to note that it seems the audience is pretty convinced the bias needs to be removed from the page. Tex an (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I just had a skim of the article's history, and I see it's been edited a lot by some of the ones I think of as the grownups in the room. If by "audience" you mean the ones who made the effort to show up on this talk page and complain, I'm not sure that is a representative sample of the RationalWiki audience. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You word things very much like a politician. "Convince the audience here, and we'll change the page." Literally everyone who has participated in the conversation wants the bias gone. "Well, you didn't understand what I meant by the word audience. I don't mean the textbook definition, I mean all the people that agree with me."

Why not let me insert the video into the section titled "==CLAIMS=="? You know, where the actual conspiracy theory and it's claims should be?Tex an (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think I word things like a politician, it's because I'm trying to be polite, dipshit. There, is that better? I've been watching the ones for years now, who did the work of editing the article as it now stands, and many if not most of them, I trust not to be bullshitters. Just now, that's more than I can say about you. Come storming in and expect us to believe you all at once because you show us a propaganda video? Get real. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we'll do that. The conspiracy theory and claims are pretty well documented by the article - you know, where it says "a particularly loopy bunch of conspiracy theorists .... believe that mass internment facilities have been built across the continental United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in preparation for a future declaration of martial law." Hipo crite 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion is what they're for, not whether they exist. Tex an (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "mass internment facilities ... in preparation for a future declaration of martial law." Hipo crite 17:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA
Your continued removal of my edits only serves to enforce the idea that the FEMA camps are real, and may pose an actual threat.Tex an (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Honest question - do you actually believe what you write, or are you trolling? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this video: http://youtu.be/S7IHJx5V9yk That congressman is a real congressman, he is obviously NERVOUS. There is SO much evidence that proves FEMA camps exist. It's like I said though, the purpose is what is up for discussion. Tex an (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Getting nervous when being confronted by lunatics isn't surprising. The evidence you have presented so far is a nervous congressperson and walking up to fenced military installations. Hipo crite 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Literally the entire article is comprised of ignorant bigotry. The whole damn thing. A "Propaganda Video"? It's an interview. With a CONGRESSMAN, over a REAL BILL. Why does Congressman Cohen LIE again and again about it? You've gotta be getting paid to cover this shit up so when ignorants google "FEMA camps" the first ( and like only) thing they click on is your page. Claiming they only exist in loopy minds. Tex an (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not getting paid. Are you getting paid to break up your state?  ħ uman  06:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you for real? It's hard to tell. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think you guys are anyone important, nor do i really believe you're getting paid to cover it up. Yes, I am for real about FEMA camps needing a look.Tex an (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So you were lying when you said "You've gotta be getting paid to cover this shit up?" Who are you quoting when you quote "Propaganda Video?" Hipo crite 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...no, I wasn't lying about anything? "You've gotta" at the beginning of a sentence implies an accusation, not a statement of supposed fact. I was quoting Sprocket. Tex an (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, boring me. Hipo <font color="Maroon">crite 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, remove the bias from your page. Your only argument is "You're loopy/crazy/insane/half-wit/etc. It's simply ignorant, and quite sheeplike. Tex an (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple things here: Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show, while entertaining, is hardly reputable. In fact, I would submit that it is a reputable with regards to conspiracy theories as Ancient Aliens is with teaching history. Secondly, I'm watching this show right now, and this video you claim to "believe" is actually a cut-and-paste job of two different episodes. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is your chance
I have more tools than anyone on this site to effect to change to this article, convince me and I can make it happen. I also haven't followed this very much so am not corrupted about the topic yet. The way you convince me is verifiable concrete evidence. I suggest you start by showing me the very best, bullet proof piece of evidence you have. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, So we've established that the FEMA camps are indeed REAL, so that's something I'd liked changed on the page. They exist. They are their own evidence. HR 645 was the specific bill calling for their construction. Yes, they are built (on paper) for disaster relief situations. However, people are concerned with the fact that we cannot get any sort of an inside look at them. The government has been kinda secretive about them, which is strange for a disaster relief program. When confronted about the bill and the existance of the FEMA camps, Co-Sponsor of the bill Congressman Cohen lied and lied about it until it became apparent he couldn't dodge the question that way.
 * Basically, the trains the Nazi's used to rally up the Jews into Concentration Camps weren't meant (on paper) to do so. Neither were the Nazi's for that matter. To think that this kind of evil, this kind of hatred, died with Hitler, is naive at best. To believe that America and it's people are so morally great that Genocide could not break out here like the rest of the world is, again, Naive.

If you still want to bash the theory that the camps have been built for no good, do so. However, please remove the misinformation from the page. Tex an (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Back up there Tex, you have NOT established that they exist. Why don't you start there. Best piece of evidence. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any evidence. Any evidence at all for anything you claim, would make your case far stronger. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you know dragging the Nazis into your argument weakens it, right? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  06:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this video is not even as reputable as "evidence" as Loose Change is as "evidence" of a 9/11 conspiracy. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Any 15 minutes spent researching the topic will prove they exist, your just a bunch of loopy government-worshipping nutjobs." <-- This is arguing in your fashion. Just because the video evidence of a Congressman blatantly lying about the bill appeared on a Wrestler's TV show about Conspiracy Theories doesn't invalidate the VIDEO OF THE CONGRESSMAN LYING ABOUT THE BILL. To those of you asking for proof of the FEMA camps existance, Idk what to tell you. If H.R. 645 and the physical structures themselves don't convince you, wtf will?

Also, Please tell me how bringing in Nazis weakens my arguments? Tex an (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, let's start with the fact that the video you claim to believe is a cut-and-paste job. What does that say about the credibility of the allegations of the lying congressman? Are they possibly a cut-and-paste job? I don't know for sure, but the evidence (stemming from the fact that this video is a cut-and-paste job) seems to undermine the credibility of the video in question from the get-go. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

re: Nazis, this is why: Reductio ad Hitlerum Ochotona princeps<sup style="color:#0066DD; font-size: 0.7em; font-style: oblique">not a pokémon 03:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this law apply when you are talking about genocide and concentration camps to begin with?108.220.14.93 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, I get what you're saying. Jesse could have said "Why are we building Nazi concentration camps all over the us?" To which Cohen would say "Well we wouldn't, because there are no such camps." They can then cut out Jesse's question and string it along with some other comments Cohen made. I do understand that they could be MAKING him look like he's lying in this way. However, this still proves the existance of the bill, and the FEMA camps. Does it not? He goes "OH yes, now I remember..I think it was something for housing people in disasters" or something like that. Which is like I said, the camps EXIST. The question people need to ask is what are they really FOR? Why are there fences with barbed wire on the top, facing both ways like a prison? Why can you not film on the property? Why aren't we allowed a tour of the facilities our government plans to house us in, in the case of a disaster? 108.220.14.93 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is Wednesday. On Wednesday you take the yellow pill. Remember, not the white pill, the yellow pill. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys? Really? ^^^ That's it? Take the yellow pill? Sounds like what they'll tell you in the FEMA camps. Tex an (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, here we are, on Sunday with no logical or thought out response to speak of. I'm just gonna go ahead and edit your page again. Tex an (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your lack of a logical or well thought out coherent response to reasonable requests of you is not a reason to reinsert conspiracy gibberish surely? When you come back with a logical and thought out response to TMT's perfectly reasonable and rational request then I am sure you will be accomodated. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldusgitus, you're just a troll. Therefore, your argument is invalid. I see that we've edited the page to admit H.R. 645 and the camps, but we've got some doublespeak going on here. The first line of the page reads : "FEMA concentration camps exist in the mind of a particularly loopy bunch of conspiracy theorists who believe that mass internment facilities have been built across the continental United States by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in preparation for a future declaration of martial law."
 * Then you go on to admit the camps exist...

Go ahead and call on the other law you put up on your site on Aug 5th that makes fun of references to 1984. These arguments are invalid as well. When speaking about interment camps and prison states it's childish to avoid speaking about Hitler, 1984, etc. 108.220.14.93 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between "FEMA has camps for the victims of natural disaster" and "FEMA is planning on murdering the entire world's population!" you fucking moron.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Something about antisemitism and autism
Nice anti-Semitic joke on the article. The epitome of autism. 07:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, if this is for...
The purpose of FEMA to aid people in times of crisis, then why would you give the DHS Director power to use it any way he see's fit?? The only reason you do that is for them to detain people, the only logical conclusion is either GITMO or the politically dissident. Either way it's not for humanitarian aid, also yes I agree they are on military bases and we don't have access to them, but they have been modified in such a way as to keep people in not out. Military bases have OUTWARD facing barbed wire, all these camps its facing INWARDS. Why would FEMA be ordered them to be built on military bases in the first place, also why have 2 command centers that are inaccessible but to employees, one for training and one for operational command?? Also the rules as you walk up to these places also known as "residential centers" state that attempting to help any one ESCAPE is breaking the law. Also, would you be more convinced if the hr 645 stated "FEMA is to build concentration camps to house the political dissident when martial law is imposed", if you do you are idiotic and borderline delusional. We have established they exist, there is no question about it what so ever, the only question remains is what purpose, giving control to DHS is a big clue. The government is not gonna tell you what they are for, they are gonna use PR and spin tactics to make you think they are for anything else.

When you combine their very existence, with the facts that DHS has ordered 1.6 billion rounds of internationally outlawed bullets (hollow points are not used in war, and we use 70 million bullets a year in war, so this order is a 20+ year supply of internationally outlawed munitions), the president signing executive order for national defend and resource preparedness, and martial law exercises all over the country what conclusion do you draw from all of that??

(4)to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. (taken directly from the bill itself)
 * Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "What conclusion do you draw from all that??" Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies... Oh my god! Lyndon LaRouche was right! --Marlow (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper Rebuttal PLEASE
I'd like to see a more detailed rebuttal of the claims put forth by, as somebody so eloquently put it, the "wingnuts".

Specifically, I'd like to see an analysis of the following claims:

>> Fences with barbed wire pointing inwards

>> Stockpiled plastic grave liners

>> Legal precedent exists to allow declaration of martial law

>> Stockpiling of 1.6 billion hollow-point rounds by Homeland Security

>> Armoured cars ordered by Homeland Security

>> EMPTY prisons

I understand that wild conspiracy theories can arise from misrepresentation and cherrypicking of data.

However, if an argument from personal incredulity is the best rebuttal you guys can put forward then I seriously worry about the reliability of the rest of this site's content.

If you really want to be "rational" - pull up all the evidence put forward and debunk it item by item.

Don't just say "well, there aren't any publicly-available documents which explicitly state that the government is going to declare martial law - therefore the government is not going to declare martial law."

That's just poor intellectual form.

Too much of this site simply dismisses all the evidence because some parts are false (i.e. 30,000 guillotines), which is itself the composition/division fallacy. Dyspepsia is not a valid rebuttal.

Truth is always a SUBSET of the evidence given.

Let 'Q' represent the claim "The US government is preparing to declare martial law".

What evidence supports Q? What data is fabricated?

What evidence negates Q? How reliable is this evidence?

The quest for truth is long and tedious.

links:

leaked documents 1

leaked documents 2

skeptoid analysis of plausibility

Forbes: 1.6bn hollowpoint rounds

purported concentration camps

purported camp locations


 * No. You cite garbage conspiracy nutters, blogs and right wing wackaloons. We don't have to rebut any of this. You find the evidence we crave to prove any of your points and we might have something to say. For now, no. Zero (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

the explanation why "H.R. 645" is "not scary", really is infuriating. you know camps like that always sound alright on paper, ahead of time. turns out, ahead of time it never says "oh we will kill a bunch of people". you don't need a fence with barb wire just for help. hard to argue with people who believe you can fight a defensive war on another continent. these bankers did it to other countries, but when it comes to us, you all act as if this is fantasy magical thinking. it is routine :(   18:26, 23 February 2014

Surival from Mongols
Is it possible the camps are for Americans to flee to in the coming mongol invasion?&mdash; Unsigned, by: Orderbel / talk / contribs

Two new pieces of evidence/govt documents
Have fun.

http://www.infowars.com/military-to-designate-u-s-citizens-as-enemy-during-collapse http://www.infowars.com/government-censors-document-revealing-plans-to-wage-war-on-americans

Real internment
WWII internment in the USA is not the only example I can think of. Aside from the USA's massive prison population (histotically a noted source of cheap/slave labour), other real life examples include imprisonment and removal of Native Americans (and Mexicans?), and off shore facilities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay... how many people were imprisoned as a result of McCarthy?

Prolonged Detention
Can we have a section on Obama's speech on Prolonged detention? FEMA nutters are interpreting it as throwing Americans in FEMA camps.--Tsunadi (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there *are* plans for "camps".
However, those are in response to that Katrina thing and the mixed bag reception of those efforts. There *are* planned camps, they're not concentration camps per any network of the US government, be it SIPRnet, JWICS or assorted other networks and a concentrated effort is performed to prevent the name Concentration Camp being used. But, apparently, it's bad to remove people from a total disaster zone, so, perhaps it is better to let them stew, ala Katrina. Or even better, barricade the entire zone until all assholes are dead. *Crap!* they'd survive, as most assholes speaking form their asses are from *outside* of the disaster. Suggesting summary execution of assholes in a disaster would serve no purpose, as we'd lose our entire government, from community to federal.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)