Joe W.
>From: "Frank Scott" <frank at marin.cc.ca.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: conspiracy, jfk
>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:06:34 -0800
>
>-"So what exactly is so foolish about talking
>about conspiracies? This is a real, not a
>rhetorical question. Maybe I just don't really
>understand what "conspiracy" means."
>
>I thought parenti gave a good, brief definition,
>and he was trashed here, with his words
>selectivley quoted to sound like they were taking
>the position they were actually criticizing...
>
>this area seems to be one of almost religious
>belief for many, pro or con...believers often go
>over the edge, making it easy for non-believers
>to paint the whole idea with the broad brush of
>idiocy, which is there in some cases...
>
>the nons are often over the edge with
>intolerance for anything that might make things
>seem a little different than their " schooled"
>analysis would accept...today being jfk
>assassination day, that case offers an example
>of how logic, critical thinking and zany nonsense
>can all wind up in the same place: acceptance,
>or tolerance of bullshit as reality, period...
>
>despite any number of nut cases making up the
>wildest stories of conspiracy, i think the
>acceptance by many of the ridiculous notion that
>oswald did it all by himself is even dumber than
>the nut cases...
>
>there is an actual film record of the event
>showing clearly that jfk's head was blown open
>by a shot coming from in front, not behind..duh?
>"expert analysis" proves that what our eyes can
>see is a trick, and that he really was hit from
>behind and all laws of motion, impact etc are
>out the window...yeah, right...
>
>lefties who trash conspiracy but accept the lone
>assassin story are as misguided as the
>unfortunate types looking for x-files or matrix
>answers to serious questions...but even without
>the filmed record, there is solid evidence to
>indicate that oswald could not shoot well
>enough to hit a sitting, stationary target - some
>right wing general whose name escapes me at
>the moment - and in fact missed the guy,
>badly...how the hell could he then proceed to
>shoot three times, in eight seconds, with a
>crappy rifle that had a faulty sight, to boot, and hit
>a moving target with two of those shots?
>
>no marksman was ever able to duplicate that
>feat, and there was even evidence that oswald
>was a very poor shot when in the service....so,
>leaving out who did it, and avioiding the false
>identities of alleged conspirators, oswald didn't
>do it alone...
>
>but accepting that seems to make some people
>uncomfortable, because america only tolerates
>lone nut assassins, and others uncomfortable
>because..??? what the hell is so difficult to
>accept? that capitalist nations fight wars? that
>ruling class circles might have serious
>differences? that big money doesn;t all go to
>one ruling sector alone? that there are divisions
>among the most powerful forces?
>
>apparently, that makes the plot too thick, or not
>thick enough...of course we will not bring on the
>revolution by jumping up and down screaming
>that jfk wasn't killed by oswald alone, but we'll
>never have a revolution by accepting the
>established bullshit story simply because it has
>the veneer of an official, academic and scientific
>picture , and doesn;t sound as kooky as some
>critics...
>
>fs
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Has one of the new viruses infected your computer? Find out with a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963