Mintball wrote:The conspiracy stuff is utterly ridiculous – not least because the mix of incompetence and stupidity alluded to above say it's not required.
The problem with "stupidity theory" and "incompetence theory", along with "sonambulist theory" (Reagan's favourite), "innocent cultural proclivities theory" and "unintended consequences theory" is not just that they have been tossed to the public with alarming frequency over the last fifty years, but that subsequent investigations have proven such to be either a distortion of the truth or a bare-faced lie.
I find it fascinating watching seemingly rational people contort themselves into knots attempting to convince anyone who'll listen that they don't believe the rich and powerful conspire to further their own interests - despite the fact that even the most biased, one-eyed power-worshipper (or Wigan Fan) could point to numerous contradictory events in recent history alone
The strange thing is this "willingness to believe" is never consistent. You, for instance, have regularly been one of George W. Bush's most enthusiastic critics. Moreover, on several occasions you have accused him of conspiratorial acts which, by any measure, are as morally abject as the most extreme indictments of 9/11 theorists.
Why is it that you don't believe a word that Bush says on Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter), but you are quite willing to close the book on 9/11? I should point out that the Bush administration fell back on "stupidity theory" and "incompetence theory" after the toothless US media finally woke up (twelve months late) and began asking tough questions. Why is it that you feel entirely comfortable quoting Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", an excellent and well-researched book that shows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company to be neither stupid nor incompetent and undoubtedly guilty of an extraordinary level of conspiracy and yet feel utterly confident in their innocence via a vis 9/11? I will remind you that Klein herself is considered by the right to be a "conspiracy theorist" and she certainly doesn't rule out at least some level of complicity.
Is it because you believe the evidence for and against both is far more compelling? If so I think you are either misinformed or just wrong. In the case of Iraqi WMD, Yellowcake, Bush & Blair's decision to go to war etc. there's no shortage of stupidity and/or incompetence to point at if that's where you believe the emphasis should be placed. OTOH, whilst I think it's safe to rule out some of the more fantastical 9/11 explanations (radio-controlled aeroplanes, controlled demolitions of the twin towers etc.), after reading quite a bit on the events from several sources I honestly cannot exclude the possibilities that Bush, Cheney et al. (a) knew that some attack was imminent, (b) knew the targets and precise dates or even (c) helped plan the attacks.
Conspiracy theorists are often accused of ignoring the ordinary in favour of the extraordinary. I think that's a fair argument. Personally, I'm worn out with the discussion over how the two towers collapsed. Whilst I accept the claim that skyscrapers have rarely (if ever) collapsed purely because of fire damage - it is entirely misleading to argue that a 400mph impact by a fully-laden commercial airliner produces exactly the same results. As for the detection of so-called "nano-thermite" in the building remains - even if true this would only constitute proof of existence (or a false positive), not its use as a demolition tool and certainly no conspiracy.
It is at this point where the "idiocracy theorists" make a fatal error: just because one explanation stretches credulity to breaking point it doesn't automatically follow that ALL are qualitatively equal. If you're listening to the self-serving Alex Jones
"blowing the lid off Obama's plans for Concentration Camp USA" you deserve every brickbat thrown at you. But not every investigator of 9/11 (or any other suspicious event, for that matter) is as reckless or stupid as Alex Jones. The truth is there are now many, many fine historians, investigative journalists, former members of the secret service etc. writing solid, well-researched material which raises some alarming questions about the roles of Bush, Cheney and company. No one book or article is conclusive. But viewed in context I think the question is nowhere near clear-cut and I'm certainly in two minds.
Of course, most people will choose to ignore such evidence completely, instead putting their faith in someone like Stella Rimmington (guffaw!) - who headed an organisation which specialises in lying, extraordinary rendition (a.k.a., torture), lying, toppling democratically elected leaders in favour of pliable dictators, lying etc. Whilst otherwise happy to attribute all manner of crooked political chicanery to these people they appear to think that beneath it all Bush, Blair, Reagan, Clinton etc. are fundamentally men of "good will", who act out of the right reasons and occasionally achieve the wrong results.
Unfortunately, when it comes to explaining how these men of "Good Will" could be so cold-blooded and/or ruthless as to :
- lie to bring about the Vietnam War in which tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were needlessly slaughtered
- train and equip Contra death squads in Nicaragua (as well as a host of other central American nations.
- pay for the Nicaraguan operation using "off the books" income raised via drug-trafficking on a colossal scale.
- assassinate civil rights activists such as Fred Hampton in part of the COINTELPRO operation.
- break in to the offices of political opponents and steal sensitive information and then cover it up (Watergate)
- conduct illegal drug trials on the homeless, the vulnerable and mentally damaged (MKULTRA).
- overthrow countless democratically elected governments (El Salvador, Chile, Iran etc.)
- train (including in techniques of torture), finance and support some of the most depraved, psychotic dictators in history (Mobutu, Pinochet etc.)
- sell arms to countries you are currently at war with (Iran)
- wholesale money laundering through a bank described as the
"most crooked in history" (BCCI).
- etc. etc. etc.
... they are mysteriously silent or fall back on the mind-boggling argument that some or all of the above are matters of fact - not conspiracy.
A Washington staffer at press conference in 1984 once asked Ronald Reagan:
"Why are we supplying covert support to the so-called Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters"?.His illuminating answer was,
"Because it would be against the law to do it overtly". When you think about it - this explains everything. It is the reason why lying is the national purpose of all powerful nations. The pretense (shot through even during the days of Greek democracy) that government cares about the people when all it really is concerned with is maintaining its own power.
