[lbo-talk] Re: conspiracy

[Joseph Wanzala]

There are actually many 'conspiracist versions' of which a comprehensive 
list must include the governments version of events, since it is also based 
on conjecture. While some 'conspiracy researchers' maintain that 'Bush did 
it', most concern themselves with raising questions about holes in the 
official story, questions that still remain unanswered. e.g. and offering 
their own theories as to what might have happened. Some, like Daniel 
Hopsicker http://www.madcowprod.com/ focus on the movements of the alleged 
hijackers in the days and months leading up to the event itself, some like 
Nafeez Ahmad look at the political context and apparent links between US 
intelligence, the Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda, while still others focus on 
the physical evidence, including many firemen in New York. It is worth 
noting that these reseachers do not walk around wearing t-shirts saying 'I 
am a conspiracist' nor do they formally join a conspiracy club - the label 
'conspiracy theorist', which has got to be one of the most unfaily 
perjorative phrases inthe English language, is one they receive from 
naysayers who seek to undermine their efforts without taking the trouble to 
do any original research themselves. It is also worth noting that the 'Bush 
knew' and 'Bush did it' motifs have been used interchangeably and are 
actually liked to the general belief, (basd on the much debated Pearl Harbor 
scenario) that if he 'knew about it' he (i.e. the goverment agencies 
concerned) could have intervened, but then 'allowed it to happen' in order 
to create a political environment to lauch the eternal 'war on terror'. It 
is also worth noting that now, two years later, the statement 'Bush knew' 
has become permissible in left circles, while before it was vociferously 
dismissed as 'conspiracist' and also not consistent with the image of Bush 
as a silly bafoon who doesn't know anything. Some people think the White 
House is stalling because they are trying to cover evidence that they blew 
it. I think it is already patently clear that they blew it. I think if they 
are hiding anything, it is much more damaging than confimatory evidence that 
they simply blew it. Even Eric Alterman has started to ask the kind of 
questions that could have gotten you ejected from many a leftist cocktail 
party two years ago. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-13.htm

Joe W.


>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: conspiracy
>Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:32:47 -0800
>
>joanna bujes wrote:
>
>>Doug writes:
>>
>>
>>"You're not the only one. Conspiracism is the class politics of fools."
>>
>>I'm a little lost here. We all agree that the current regime is a danger 
>>to the world and ought to be removed -- even in the absence of socialist 
>>revolution. Right?
>>Since 9/11 many, many questions have been left unanswered; in fact, this 
>>administration has made no effort to determine how it happened -- if 
>>effort is measured in terms of $$ and time spent. So, either they were 
>>fools (they didn't know it was going to happen) or they were knaves (they 
>>knew it was going to happen but didn't let on because it was so helpful 
>>for it to happen) or (they didn't know it was going to happen, but once it 
>>did, it was more important to use it to advance their own agenda than to 
>>determine the cause) or (they played a more direct role in making it 
>>happen). But if the govt is indeed responsible for protecting the safety 
>>of its people (which Bush himself argues by waging his fight on 
>>"terrorism"), then, by any account they are knaves because they are not 
>>carrying out their responsibility to determine who was actually 
>>responsible for the damage done. If they don't know, how can they prevent 
>>it from happening again? Moreover, they must be conspiring knaves !
>>because they must surely work together to pull in the same direction.
>>
>>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.
>
>On 9/11, the "conspiracist" version is that Bush did it, or the Mossad did 
>it. Saying that the Bush admin wants to block an investigation isn't 
>conspiracist - it's a fact. I think the major reason they want to block it 
>is because it'd reveal that they fucked up bigtime, not that they recruited 
>the hijackers.
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
Say “goodbye” to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet 
connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)