[FoRK] Pentagon 911 video
Malcolm Greenshields <
greenshields at uleth.ca
> on >
Thu May 25 20:04:14 PDT 2006
Matt Jensen wrote:
> Corinna wrote:
>> If it was their intention to put conspiracy theories
>> to rest, they failed miserably.
> Maybe I shouldn't ask, but what's the theory?
> People consider conspiracy theories because a) it gives them a sense
> of control and purpose, in the face of a world that sometimes offers
> neither, and b) it gives them an undue sense of competence; that is,
> all those so-called experts think they're so smart, but I know what
> really happened. For those reasons, they're exciting. But it's up to
> us to step back and realize when we're letting an adrenaline rush of
> excitement overtake our critical faculties.
> This Administration is headed by incomptent bunglers of the highest
> order. Let's assume for a moment that the Pentagon strike was really
> a missile, and not the missing aircraft. Give me some kind of
> scenario that makes sense here.
> Were the other three "planes" actually planes?
> Were they hijacked by Islamist terrorists?
> If so, were the terrorists set up by the Administration? That is,
> did the plan originate in Al Qaeda, or in the White House?
> If Al Qaeda initiated the plan, and the White House discovered it,
> why didn't they stop it? What's the advantage to adding an attack on
> the Pentagon?
> It makes no sense.
> It's like saying "if Bush discovered Al Qaeda was going to detonate a
> nuclear bomb in L.A., he would let them do it, so that afterward he
> could rally the country and command more power." Isn't that
> completely ridiculous, even for Bush and Rove? Isn't it a thousand
> times more likely that Bush would have the FBI arrest (or kill) the
> terrorists, and trumpet on the front pages how he saved an American
> city from destruction?
> If you can, please tell me a scenario where a fake/gov't-sponsored
> Pentagon attack could make plausible sense.
> Matt Jensen
> FoRK mailing list
Conspiracy theory is fun, but when it gets elaborate, it usually assumes
an almost impossible level of competence and power among the
conspirators. When I was very young and communists were responsible for
all the ills of the world, including water flouridation, premarital sex,
and some of the best rock'n'roll, I remember a cynical old geezer
saying, "These communists must be a lot smarter than us and awfully
busy." There are always real conspiracies, but usually the character and
interests of the conspirators can be made fairly clear without too much
thought: the need for oil, the British desire to have IRA contributions
curbed in the U.S., the desire for victory and revenge, along with a
sincere sense of superiority and uniqueness among all civilizations in
history, a messianic boob in the white house with hasty advisors, faulty
and misinterpreted or ignored intelligence, contempt for those with
different opinions, and a lot of intellectually timid and parochial
journalists "embedded" and full of shock and awe. Combine these with a
nasty, genuinely conspiring, cult of islamic assassins, the posturing of
a brutal and repulsive dictator who sort of looks like the guys
responsible for an incredibly cruel outrage against civilians at home,
and it doesn't take much conspiring to get things started, just a little
exaggeration, a few stupid decisions and a lot of arrogance and money.
Although you may remember the taliban as great freedom fighters and
American allies in Rambo III, the mission to Afghanistan is probably a
good idea, genuinely seeking to interdict Al Qaeda, to stop a real and
lethal conspiracy, but Iraq.....?
More information about the FoRK