<html> <head> <style> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body>What is quite remarkable about the 'anti-conspiracists' on this list and in general is that they rarely if ever actually take on any specific 9-11 researchers or intellectuals who have questioned the 9-11 narrative - whether it be Indira Singh http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=indira_singh, Sibel Edmonds http://www.justacitizen.com/, Daniel Ellsberg, http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/pentagon_papers_author_gov_maybe_did_911.htm , Ray McGovern, Mike Ruppert, Steven Jones etc Also, people n this list prefer to dwell on narrow questions of what may or may not have happened on the fateful day than on the larger questions of what may or may not have happened in the months and years leading up to the event and the wider geopolitical questions addressed by Peter Dale Scott and others. Instead, as I pointed out earlier they create this fictive or composite 'conspiracist' interlocutor. In fact there is much debate among 9-11 rsearchers abou what may have happened in the years, months, weeks and days leading to 9-11 and many who do not subcribe to the idea that the pentagon was not hit by a plane or that the towers fell as a result of demolition there is much more agreement upstream - that is, on the idea that there was, at the very least, collusion between elements of the national security apparatus and the international criminal networks (aka Al Qeada) who were clearly involved. It seems fairly obvious that the criminal consiracy did not begin and end with the alleged hijackers. It is also interesting to note how the parameters of debate have movd sgnificantly since 2001. Initially the 'conspiracy' view was 'Bush knew' and this view was widely derided on the let and the mainstream - now this view has gone mainstream, even become passe and the question has become how much does he know. (of course the term 'Bush' here is used as a euphemism for the administration - not the man himself) Joe W. <hr id="stopSpelling">> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:59:34 +1000 > To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org > From: billbartlett@dodo.com.au > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A question for the anti-"conspiracy"-theorists about9/11 > > At 2:24 PM -0500 22/8/06, Carrol Cox wrote: > > >Chuck wrote: > >  > > >> > >>  I think that this really boils down to racism. > > > >THis is, I think, very nearly the _whole_ reason behind most > >conspiracism. Stupid arabs couldn't do anything that clever, it must > >have been done by the kind of guys that brought us the Bay of Pigs. > > > > No, it isn't even close to the whole reason behind "conspiracism". At  > heart, most conspiracy theories seem to have a strong element of  > denial that there is any systematic root cause. > > Take for instance the UFO "conspiracists". The problem for them is  > that there is no evidence of alien contact with our planet. Now it  > could be that this stems from the fact that there actually has been  > no such contact, but if you don't want to accept that for some reason  > you'll look for some way to reconcile the two. Easy - there has been  > contact, but "they" are conspiring to conceal it. > > Turning to political events, it seems to me that the same thing is  > going on. In this case the problem is that the "conspiracists" can't  > reconcile various unpalatable yet undeniable realities with their  > deeply indoctrinated belief that their beloved political system is  > incapable of producing such effects. > > Once again, belief in a secret conspiracy is the solution. You don't  > have to blame the system, its only a few bad apples. Sometimes, the  > bad apples must be at the very top to have the power, but that's no  > problem either. As long as it doesn't threaten the deeply ingrained  > belief in the goodness of the "American Way". > > It all operates on an unconscious level of course. (I'm not  > suggesting a conscious conspiracy, but rather that people  > instinctively clutch onto any theory or idea which allows them to  > cling to their fantasy that the "American Way" is thoroughly good.) > > Its more common in the US simply because the indoctrination of  > Americans to believe that their system is the best of all possible  > systems is so pervasive. All that "...Justice and freedom for all"  > stuff that American kids are made to chant while holding their hands  > over their hearts on every occasion possible. Sickening really, I  > mean it really turns my stomach to watch it and I know I'm not alone.  > People the world over look away in embarrassment when Americans do it  > without the slightest idea how ridiculous it makes them look. > > The real problem of course is that they come to believe it, at a deep  > and unconscious level. Yet of course the real world is very different  > and they can see that too. So they have to come up with some way to  > reconcile the two realities. > > 911 "conspiracists" are no different, except of course they are often  > people reconciling somewhat different versions of reality to the  > average American. Whereas the "American way is great and good"  > "conspiracists" are an embarrassment to the American way, the 911  > "conspiracists" are equally an embarrassment to those who think like,  > for instance, Chomsky. the 911 "conspiracists" want to worship the  > victims of American policy, as if just because they are victims of  > American policy that makes all opponents of the American Way some  > kind of saints. So they couldn't have done it, it must have been the  > great Satan that did this to itself, to discredit Saint Osama. > > Bill Bartlett > Bracknell Tas > > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </body> </html>