OK. I see your point, but I guess I make a distinction between speculating about potential conspiracies--which certainly do exist--and conspiracism, which in my usage refects an inability to distinguish between facts and rumors, and makes leaps of logic. I thought the speculation by Salim was both noted as such, and within the bounds of logical extrapolation.
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:27 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: al-Qaeda and Taliban
>
>
> This article isn't exactly non-conspiracist. It doesn't discount
the
> possibility of a conspiracy, except insofar as it alludes to
analyses
> by means of that terminology. If I had to guess, it would be that
> the author believes some of this stuff and but chooses to present
> it indirectly as what others are saying.
>
> There is a difference between a conspiracist tale wherein Israel
> or the CIA engineers the hijackings, and all of the following, for
> which I have no particular evidence but I think are completely
> plausible:
>
> * the U.S. Gov had contacts with the Taliban and/or OBL, possibly
> related to oil, that it has not informed us about;
>
> * that the hijackings had something to do with the outcome of
> these contacts;
>
> * that present U.S. deployments have not *only* to do with
fighting
> the Taliban and OBL etc., but also with long-standing and
> overarching geo-strategic considerations, in part related
> to the geographic distribution of oil reserves and potential
> routes of resource transport.
>
> I don't see any of these latter three points as 'conspiracist.'
> They could be wrong. Or they could all be spot on, and the
> U.S. mission to Afgh would still be justified as reponse to
> 9-11. I think these are separate questions. Jumbling them
> together probably leaches credibility from the political-
> economic issues more than not, since the issue of
> U.S. motives in the region, comprehensively considered,
> is spattered with improbable, unverifiable tales. Maybe
> there is a conspiracy to allege conspiracy.
>
> mbs
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > For a refreshingly clear and non-conspiracist article, see:
> >
> > Pipeline politics taint U.S. war
> >
> > by Salim Muwakkil
> > Chicago Tribune
>