...and what Scott accomplishes here as well is to demonstrate the quintessential difference between (his) lucid power structure research and febrile conspiracism.
:-)
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Scott Martens
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:35 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: manna for conspiracists
>
>
> Is there really a need for a conspiracy theory to make sense
> of this? Let
> me a paint a scenario which calls for somewhat less actual
interaction
> between the participants.
>
> Let's take Brisard and Dasquie hypothetically at their word: the
Bush
> administration went to the Taliban in the summer of 2001 and
> said, hand over
> bin Laden and let us build a pipeline through Afghanistan or
> else we'll
> start taking military action against you. This strikes me as
> plausible, and
> while it involves a conspiracy it is the kind of thing I can
> easily imagine
> the Bushies doing - working overtime to defend oil interests
> and damn the
> consequences. Having a secret foreign policy is not new
> territory for the
> US government.
>
> Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda take the threat to heart and decide to
> activate some
> US cells that have been training to commit terrorist acts on US
soil.
> They've already thought through the possibility of having to
> hit the US more
> directly and had a plan in place. This strikes me as a
> sensible thing for
> an international terrorist organisation to have done anyway.
>
> From a certain point of view, they're defending themselves.
> The US has
> threatened them and they won't just stand still for it. What
> makes such a
> story damning for the US is that it undermines the idea that 9-11
was
> totally gratuitous and unprovoked. The US directly threatens
> to attack a
> country, and some of the people in that country take action
> against the US.
> It's hard to make sound bites about "attacks against freedom
> and Western
> civilisation" make sense in light of something like that.
>
> Please note, for anyone confused about what I'm saying, that
> this isn't a
> moral defense of terrorism. I'm not saying Al-Qaeda was justified
in
> killing thousands of people, just that if all if the above is
> true, then the
> US government simply can't claim complete innocence in the
> matter. When you
> threaten people, you can't expect them to simply lie down and take
it.
>
> So, somebody in France is already preparing a book about all this
and
> publishes it. The British press, having some employees who can
speak
> French, publish a few stories about it and eventually someone
> at CNN starts
> to pay attention. CNN doesn't dare say or do anything that
> might undermine
> the basic good vs. evil version of the war in Afghanistan because
that
> doesn't improve their ratings, and they tend to call on
> government people to
> comment on everything anyway. So they get Butler to comment
> on the story,
> and he says his thing.
>
> This kind of media apathy is pretty well documented, and
> doesn't really
> require a conspiracy either. It just requires a corporation
> to believe that
> commercial success comes from not being very controversial.
>
> This sort of system is self-sustaining and requires very little
real
> conspiracy. Big country pushes little country around in
> secret. Little
> country finds creative ways to get back at big country. Big
> country's media
> tow the party line because people get angry when they don't.
>
> Scott Martens
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hakki Alacakaptan <nucleus at superonline.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:42 AM
> Subject: RE: manna for conspiracists
>
>
> >
> > || -----Original Message-----
> > || From: Max B. Sawicky
> >
> > || Hakki:
> > || The reason why the pipeline theory or the Brisard & Dasquié
> > || book is on CNN
> > || is spin control, and that's why Richard Butler is on the
show.
> > || Not because
> > || he's an expert but because he's a trusted Bushie. Hakki
> >
> > || mbs: So CNN airs information that blows the lid off the
affair,
> > || all as a device to keep it secret? A conspirator gives
> it credence,
> > || on air, by failing to react with incredulity? This is
> pathological.
> >
> >OK, I'll spell it out for you: CNN is an international operation.
CNN
> cannot
> >keep a cover on the pipeline and the book without losing
> credibility in the
> >rest of the world, as opposed to, say, Fox. It needs to
> address the issue,
> >not keep it secret. So it addresses it by producing experts,
> sources, or
> >evidence to shoot the theory down. Duh.
> >
> >Hakki
> >
>