The British-American coup that ended Australian independence

[barbos]

Australian I spoke to disagrees with that, and majority of Australians too.
Kerr had to leave Australia after that crisis.

He chose to leave

Yeah, but he was planning on staying, but he could not choose staying, so it was not really a choice.

 

[bigfield]

I don't know which other Australians you have been talking to, but the only ones I know of, who consider CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal to be even a possibility, are wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.

Well, then wikipedia article must have been written by some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

The Wikipedia article does not provide an opinion as that would be editorialising.

It does however, cite the wild-eyed Christopher Boyce and John Pilger. Boyce cannot be trusted as a source due to his history of deception, and Pilger's CIA sources are conspiracy theory nuts like Victor Marchetti, which means he is good for a bit of entertaining reading but does not even remotely resemble a reliable historian.

 

[tupac chopra]

Catch 22

If the CIA did do anything, it would, by definition be a conspiracy, and therefore could not be believed.
So anything the CIA do can't ever be believed, even if true.

 

[bilby]

If the CIA did do anything, it would, by definition be a conspiracy, and therefore could not be believed.
So anything the CIA do can't ever be believed, even if true.

A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies exist; a defining feature of conspiracy theories is that they do not refer to actual conspiracies, but are rather false beliefs that a conspiracy exists, where in fact one does not.

It is a confusing name, but we are stuck with it. English is full of such things. This one relies on the most casual definition for the word 'theory' to mean a mere guess (that a conspiracy might exist).

If a conspiracy theorist were to show that his theory was well founded, it would simply become an instance of a conspiracy, and would no longer be a 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[Tigers!]

If the CIA did do anything, it would, by definition be a conspiracy, and therefore could not be believed.
So anything the CIA do can't ever be believed, even if true.

A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies exist; a defining feature of conspiracy theories is that they do not refer to actual conspiracies, but are rather false beliefs that a conspiracy exists, where in fact one does not.

It is a confusing name, but we are stuck with it. English is full of such things. This one relies on the most casual definition for the word 'theory' to mean a mere guess (that a conspiracy might exist).

If a conspiracy theorist were to show that his theory was well founded, it would simply become an instance of a conspiracy, and would no longer be a 'conspiracy theory'.

Don't take away their toys, they won't appreciate it.

 

[tupac chopra]

If the CIA did do anything, it would, by definition be a conspiracy, and therefore could not be believed.
So anything the CIA do can't ever be believed, even if true.

A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies exist; a defining feature of conspiracy theories is that they do not refer to actual conspiracies, but are rather false beliefs that a conspiracy exists, where in fact one does not.
.

Unless you can prove a negative , you have over reached here. You can't say that the belief is false only that you don't consider the evidence sufficient.
The problem is that you would not expect to see evidence of CIA involvement if it were true.
But there is little doubt Australia is a vassal of the United States (particularly with the present doofus in the Lodge).
Whitlam was probably the only PM is recent history who had any backbone so it's understandable if the USA wanted him gone. Whether the CIA played any part we don't know.

 

[bilby]

A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies exist; a defining feature of conspiracy theories is that they do not refer to actual conspiracies, but are rather false beliefs that a conspiracy exists, where in fact one does not.
.

Unless you can prove a negative , you have over reached here. You can't say that the belief is false only that you don't consider the evidence sufficient.

You misunderstand; I am not attempting to prove anything; I am supplying a definition. This is a necessary first step in any discussion; without agreed definitions, we would just talk past each other.

 

[Axulus]

A conspiracy is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies exist; a defining feature of conspiracy theories is that they do not refer to actual conspiracies, but are rather false beliefs that a conspiracy exists, where in fact one does not.
.

Unless you can prove a negative , you have over reached here. You can't say that the belief is false only that you don't consider the evidence sufficient.
The problem is that you would not expect to see evidence of CIA involvement if it were true.
But there is little doubt Australia is a vassal of the United States (particularly with the present doofus in the Lodge).
Whitlam was probably the only PM is recent history who had any backbone so it's understandable if the USA wanted him gone. Whether the CIA played any part we don't know.

It is up to the one providing the theory that a CIA conspiracy took place to provide the evidence. "The CIA has done things like this in the past", and "This person has an interesting story to tell" are extremely low quality sources of evidence.

Even if you want to make the claim that the CIA leaves little evidence of the conspiracies it commits, that merely explains why evidence is hard to come by. It doesn't tell you which ones of the hundreds of alleged theories are actually true and it doesn't mean that we can also lower our standards of required evidence just because evidence is typically lacking. Anyone can make an allegation and lowering the standards for evidence is going to mean you'll believe all the false allegations as well as the true ones. The end result is that your brain is riddled with many false beliefs and no way to tell which is which.