> On May 13, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > stop assuming that the
> > Bush Administration was affected by lack of intelligence.
> >
>
> But isn't that exactly the assumption made by Doug and all the other
> Left adherents
> of the Official AlQaeda Conspiracy Theory?
My only assumptions are that in the absence of a comprehensive and tightly structured police state, it is fairly easy for an intelligent and determined individual or group to cause a lot of mayhem.
This assumption is based on observation of the very bad ways we (humans) evaluate and mitigate risks. Collectively we are incredibly bad at it, especially when we try and think about it.
Even with a comprehensive police state, there will be flaws. But the USA is fairly open in that perspective. The reason there aren't more people causing massive mayhem is because the people who can do it are rare. It takes a combination of intelligence (to identify flaws correctly), murderous pathology, and willingness to die. You may find smart psychopaths but they usually have sufficient desire for self-preservation. Most psychopaths who are suicidal lack the patience and dedication to complete the plan.
What you mock as the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is simply the explanation most consistent with the facts. Those facts are
1) it is trivial to sneak crude weapons on to airplanes
2) it was trivial to violently gain control of an aircraft [that
has changed - due to reenforced cockpit doors, but mostly due to
the fact that if someone tries to gain control of a plane, the
passengers will go apeshit, and the crew is unlikely to open the
doors, no matter how many throats are being cut]
3) commercial airliners are only moderately difficult to steer
[versus takeoff or land]
4) individuals on the planes fit the
determined/smart/crazy/suicidal profile
5) those individuals had clear links to an organization with
motive and funding.
A set of random coincidences doesn't undermine those facts, nor do they collectively become a better explanation.
I recognize that a conspiracist can never be convinced; every fact in support of the conventional explanation is part of the conspiracy, and every coincidence proves the conspiracy. To a conspiracist, the conspiracy is proven by the lack of evidence. This is an intellectual dead end, but if any readers are considering going down that road, I am hoping to dissuade them....or at least offer caution.
Conspiracy theories are very much to History as Intelligence Design is to Biology. Both are rooted in denial of evidence in favor of dogma.
Matt
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim/google/MSN/yahoo: beyondzero123
Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
-Ferris Bueller