[lbo-talk] Another Poll

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

> >Good question.  I admit most of it is conjecture based on perceived 
> >conflicts of interests, and finding motives for seemingly irrational 
> >actions.  But I am not alone in tha approach - see for example 
> >Kupchan's book _The End of the Amercian Era_ which takes a similar 
> >line, or for that matter, the way Rusmsfeld and Co. approached 
> >intelligence gathering.  It is a "deductive" approach instead of an 
> >"inductive" one. That is, it starts with finding who had the motive, 
> >opportunity and means and then see whether he did it, instead of 
> >collecting pieces of evidence and then trying to connect the dots.
> 
> Watch out.  Apply that method to the question of
> whether the Bushits deliberately allowed the 9/11
> attacks to succeed and you'll have Chip Berlet et. al. 
> convicting you of Conspiracy Theorizing.
> 
>   Shane Mage

The main difference between conspiracy theries and the deductive
approach as outlined below is that the former can thrive on the absence
of empirical evidence corroborating the conjecture, whereas the latter
can be disproved by the absence of such evidence.

The Bushits deliberately allowing 9/11 to happen is too farfetched, even
as a theory, but the anthrax scare tha followed may be their works.  It
is so that the fear effect is very high without producing the actual
property damage (as opposed to 9/11), which suits  the Bush agenda quite
well,  the anthrax was weapon quality and thus difficult to obtain for a
fringe element, and nobody was caught.  That is the conjecture that
should guide further research on this issue.  What differentiates it
form a conspiracy theory is that if such research fails to produce any
evidence, the former will eventually be put to rest, whereas the latter
will feed on the lack of evidence.

Wojtek