Sure, I will ask an expert, but why is it that you get angry if I choose to ask a few friends (which is what I hope most of LBO is to me)? That my message (and the ensuing thread) are occupying your mailbox and your time? Is it the reference to "anti-conspiracy theorists"? That was intended to address the question to that sub-group who might know the answer, given their efforts to dispel "conspiracy theories".
I do not think there is anything wrong with naive questioning. In fact, I think even among experts, an assumed naive stance helps unearth hidden assumptions and unexpected solutions. As previously argued, I do not believe in this notion of "conspiracy theory" (used as a form of repudiation), but in this case, even that argument style is misdirected, since I have no alternate theory to offer. What I am interested in is looking at the only theory I have in hand (that a bunch of guys with OBL/Al-Qaeda funding learn to fly planes and managed to hit their chosen targets) to find out how well it fits the problem. The issue I raise is a "hole" for me for the stated reasons. To recast it as a rhetorical device is to look for demons where none are present.
Your analysis fails me. I am not asking a technical question about a specialized field ("how is it that element X with a blah-blah point of Y did not behave in anticipated way Z") but whether the specialized field finds this explanation to hold. My relatives ask me such questions about the Internet or computer software all the time ("How is it that my email address remains the same even when I visit the USA?","How is it that some graduate student can write some software that is supposed to be better than Microsoft's sophisticated products built on billions of dollars?", etc). I find them pretty meaningful questions.
> It's like saying - I don't believe Hezbollah fought Israel to a
> standstill. How could a third-world guerrilla army fight so well against
> a giant military machine? There must be "giant holes" in the "mainstream
> story." Well, no, there aren't.
OK, so I actually think that is a great question, stripped of your choice of words. Let us take out "I don't believe" and "there must be giant holes in the mainstream story" (neither of which are even my words: I wrote: the simplest and most plausible explanation; has giant holes (... for me)) and instead just pose the question as "How is it that Hezbollah fought Israel to a standstill? What does the mainstream story tell me about this?". Either the question is illegitimate in the sense of a non-question (which I take into account by wondering in my original post if I have a wrong idea of these things), or it is a meaningful one and can be addressed (skill, time and space permitting). I guess you could go ask the thousands of military experts. I don't know. Part of my leftist tradition is to seek out alternate explanations, or at least explanations from alternate sources, rather than [just] establishment types or experts.
I would suggest that you are confusing "holes" (what I wrote) with "errors" (what the "conspiracy theorists" imply or say outright). Even the most sophisticated and overarching theories have holes in them. Often, it is by examining these holes that progress is made.
I should thank Andy F and Jerry Monaco, who are beginning to make it a habit of treating me seriously and are therefore educating me, for their responses. As also Wendy Lyon and future respondents!
Jerry: could you go back to using a regular font (monospaced preferably) thats 9pt size or higher? Your recent posts are unreadably small (as rendered on my 1600x1200 display).
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/