From: paul childs
>It's become knee jerk. Also, it's selective and
>inconsistent, in the sense, that nobody bats an eyelash when somebody
>asserts that, say 9/11, was a conspiracy by Al Q. For some reason, saying
>that is not conspiracy theorism. But if there is any discussion of U.S.
>government machinations, many people here feel compelled to point out that
>it's conspiracy theorism ohhhhh bad.
Sigh, I tried to stay out of this, even after being told offlist I was a nitwit for going down the wrong 'rabbit hole', jesus, sounds just like Dubya 'smoking out' gophers, err, terrorists.
^^^ CB: Uhhuh . Well I'm looking at you down in that hole. Because I ain't in no hole. My feet are planted firmly on terra firma.
^^^
The knee jerk reaction is this; a theory of events that says that Bush and Co. took advantage of the carnage from something they badly fucked up (preventing 9/11) to advance their domestic political, security, foreign policy and economic agendas (like eventually invading Iraq) is a lot more consistent with subsequent facts and events (and preceding facts and events actually), than does a theory that is built on innuendo, coincidence and cartoonish assumptions about how capitalist society works.
^^^^^ CB: A better word than "theory" would be "hypothesis". What you are saying is you like your hypothesis better than ____( there are several other hypothesis). What are the innuendos you are talking about ? "Coincidence" isn't that special. What "coincidences" are you talking about ? And what cartoonish assumptios about how capitalist society works , do tell .
^^^^^^
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no doubt these guys wanted to invade Iraq and built an astounding number of bullshit rationalizations ranging from WMD, middle east democracy, achieving Palestinian statehood to revenge for SH trying to whack Dimbulbs daddy to accomplish just that. But that’s not the same thing as saying they were hoping to achieve this by ‘allowing’, ‘encouraging’ or ‘planning’ 9/11.
^^^ CB: Agree. Those are not the same thing. (Although, they don't exactly contradict each other).
^^^^^^^
Do a reality check on two things; 1) if the MO here was invading Iraq why waste billions on Afghanistan first, don’t you think there would have been more conclusive evidence that 9/11 had an Iraq connection, like say having 14 out of 19 hijackers come from Iraq rather than a nominal ally?
^^^^^ CB: Here's another reality check. Do these guys consider invading Afghan a "waste" of billions ? Who are these guys anyway ? The military industrial complexers ? Do they consider military spending a waste ?
Anyway, this question only applies to the version that the U.S. organized the whole thing. There is that hypothesis that they knew something , but didn't stop what somebody else organized
^^^^^^^
2) if the MO was invading Iraq don’t you think they would have done a better job, this occupation bears all the hallmarks of a poorly planned, politically driven military adventure.
^^^^^ CB: No, I think the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.
^^^^^^
You want knee jerk, here’s knee jerk; if these guys put together a conspiracy that killed 3000 people on American soil they’d do a better job at invading and occupying Iraq, their nominal objective.
^^^^^ CB: That's possible , but not certain. You are replying to only one possible version. Another version is that the U.S. didn't organize the whole thing, but just didn't stop it, when it knew, because it knew it could use it
AND THE MAIN COMMENT ON THIS IS THAT IT IS FOOLISH TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM ASSERTING THAT THE US REPRESSIVE APPARATUS IS ENTIRELY CAPABLE OF ALLOWING THE MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS TO GET AN EXCUSE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE IT WANTS TO DO. THAT'S ABOUT THE BIGGEST POINT. WHY ON EARTH WOULD A BUNCH OF LEFTISTS BE SO WORKED UP ABOUT DEFENDING THE "CHARACTER" OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AS IN "THEY'D NEVER DO THAT".
When you get something a little more substantive to support your theories let us know, meanwhile go back to the X-Files.
^^^^^^
CB: When you grow up from your Mr. Rogers' version of the U.S. government, you might be a bit more skeptical about what you read in the newspapers.