Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
Completely unrelated?
It proves that the US military was prepared to kill its own citizens in fake terror attacks, and get this - substitute passenger aircraft for remote-control drones even! Preposterous indeed.
I can't give a more recent example, or document of a similar plot that took place, because any that exist are still classified! In terms of declassified documents, Northwoods is brand new. It's the most recent insight we have into the types of clandestine operations the US military will consider.
I haven't argued that Northwoods proves that 9-11 was a conspiracy, fridgemagnet. What it does is to dispel two main counterarguments put; one, that they wouldn't do it; and two, that it would be impossible to get away with. And if that was what they would do for Cuba, what would they do for the world?
It proves that the US military was prepared to kill its own citizens in fake terror attacks, and get this - substitute passenger aircraft for remote-control drones even! Preposterous indeed.
I can't give a more recent example, or document of a similar plot that took place, because any that exist are still classified! In terms of declassified documents, Northwoods is brand new. It's the most recent insight we have into the types of clandestine operations the US military will consider.
I haven't argued that Northwoods proves that 9-11 was a conspiracy, fridgemagnet. What it does is to dispel two main counterarguments put; one, that they wouldn't do it; and two, that it would be impossible to get away with. And if that was what they would do for Cuba, what would they do for the world?
Conspiracies do exist - the tobacco industry is a classic example of a conspiracy. For over 50 years the tobacco industry lied about the danger of tobacco and cast doubt on the link between smoking and cancer. A more recent case is the Enron scandal. Is your problem with "conspiracies" or "conspiracy theories"?
Freke says people want to believe the worst of Bush. This is hilarious! Bush told countless lies about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam, as a result 100,000s of people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and many more lives are being threatened. Disliking GWB and seeing him in a bad light is completely in keeping with what we know of the man and has nothing to do with some secret irrational hatred.
How can we ignore that the war in Iraq was planned well in advance of 911 by a select group of men who ended up assuming positions of power in the first Bush administration? Is this not a conspiracy, a group of men getting together to plan a war in secret? What could be more criminal than that? The evidence is staring us in the face and you have to admire these people for their chutzpah. It certainly hasn't damaged their careers in any way.
Also, conspiracy theorists very often uncover valid information that helps make sense of conspiracies. Perhaps opting to explain events using Institutional Theory is more useful than apportioning blame to a handful of people, for if those individuals were not in the positions that enabled them to conspire to do something illegal, other actors would take their place and would in all likelihood behave in the same way. The weakness of conspiracy theories is that they encourage us to pin the blame on specific individuals and the status quo is maintained. Yet, the underlying cause - capitalism - that gives rise to greed, corruption, secrecy, abuses of power etc, remains unchecked.
This might be true but people who are drawn to conspiracy theories see some nefarious deed enacted, observe how it is covered up or ignored and then seek to redress the situation by uncovering the facts for themselves. In the case of 911 there are many unanswered questions, Bush was not interested in investigating 911, yet warned Americans to not give into "outrageous conspiracy theories". If it were not for the "Jersey Girls" we would never have had the half-baked 911 investigation, which, millions of dollars later, discovered precisely nothing. If there was nothing to hide - why all the secrecy? The Bush administration could end all conspiracy theories by putting into the public domain every single document related to 911. Why the evasions?Bernie Gunther said:
Freke says people want to believe the worst of Bush. This is hilarious! Bush told countless lies about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam, as a result 100,000s of people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and many more lives are being threatened. Disliking GWB and seeing him in a bad light is completely in keeping with what we know of the man and has nothing to do with some secret irrational hatred.
How can we ignore that the war in Iraq was planned well in advance of 911 by a select group of men who ended up assuming positions of power in the first Bush administration? Is this not a conspiracy, a group of men getting together to plan a war in secret? What could be more criminal than that? The evidence is staring us in the face and you have to admire these people for their chutzpah. It certainly hasn't damaged their careers in any way.
Also, conspiracy theorists very often uncover valid information that helps make sense of conspiracies. Perhaps opting to explain events using Institutional Theory is more useful than apportioning blame to a handful of people, for if those individuals were not in the positions that enabled them to conspire to do something illegal, other actors would take their place and would in all likelihood behave in the same way. The weakness of conspiracy theories is that they encourage us to pin the blame on specific individuals and the status quo is maintained. Yet, the underlying cause - capitalism - that gives rise to greed, corruption, secrecy, abuses of power etc, remains unchecked.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Hey ho, real world calling. (a) as I repeatedly said, people are not saying "they wouldn't do it", so that's bullshit. (b) hello, they didn't get away with Northwoods, did they? because it didn't happen and we even know about potential plans for it? hello?DrJazzz said:
So, irrelevant, then. Entirely irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time. As usual.
FridgeMagnet said:
"Irrelevant apart from the CIA weren't above organising such a thing".
Hilarious! Far from irrelevant in the current context then.
We're not in a court of law here FM where you're the Judge and jury, we're in the court of public opinion where those responsibilities are subsumed by everyone. For example, I personally, am of the opinion that almeria (RIP), Dr Jazzz, fela fan, sparticus, BB, Jangla, RD, neilh, fubert and one or two others, all make a damn site more sense on this subject than you, the editor and that sorry band of old sausages who follow him around calling for the bin at every opportunity. Basically, your own positions have barely shifted inch from the moment the good old BBC came and told us :it was al-Qaeda wot don it, honest guv" on day 2.
You didn't miss that humungous kerosine fireball explode through the east face of tower 2 then? So, what source fueled the "raging inferno" that weakened the fire resistant steel framework to the point where it collapsed neatly into its own footprint? Do you think that it was just "some" of the aircraft fuel load and not all of it that did the trick, as the editor seems to imply and if it was then how come tower 2 managed to come down first even though it was attacked last and had even less fuel present than tower 1?
A pernicious effect of over-reading Chomsky etc... what do you mean? This would be like saying Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a conspiracy theory or Karl Marx's Capital. Chomsky provides a framework which allows us to understand American foreign policy while Pilger uncovers the truth just like Fisk in the following article which appeared in yesterdays Independent:freke said:
Is this conspiratorial bile? Or conspiracy fact?
Global Echo
DrJ, bigfish et all, why don't you go and chat about this on some proper conspiracy websites?
Look, I've even started a thread for you.
http://physics911.ca/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=3&post_id=185&topic_id=44#forumpost185
Look, I've even started a thread for you.
http://physics911.ca/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=3&post_id=185&topic_id=44#forumpost185
tum te tumbigfish said:
http://physics911.ca/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=3&post_id=185&topic_id=44#forumpost185
Raisin D'etre said:
You're right. Everyone else is wrong: inasmuch as we should have had a different term.
Conspiracies exist.
The entities described as "conspiracy theories" also exist. Trouble is, they have nothing to do with actual conspiracies, have a mere nodding acquaintance with evidence, have nothing to do with analysis, and do not meet any expressible criteria for being considered "theories".
It would have been better if another term had been chosen.
"Fruitloop fantasies" is good. "Paranoid disordered thoughts" is clinically accurate. "Excusing yourself from actual action to improve things through speculating about how all-powerful the powers that be might be" is politically spot-on.
But that's not how language works (not that so-called "conspiracy theorists" are capable of analysing how language works - they have the same insane approach to their texts as fundamentalist preacher-men have to theirs). Language is quite content to offer us "troll posts" that have no literal connection with bridges in Norway and do not qualify as fence-supporting timbers. Those of us who believe in the power of evidence and reason have got used to the phrase "conspiracy theory" having a similarly nonexistent relationship to its component phonemes.
Of course, "Everyone else is wrong" is the entire point for a "conspiracy theorist". They wish to be special. (They are, in fact, "special" in the sarcastic sense.) They wish to be the only one who knows The Truth.
Which means, by definition, that what they make so much noise about is not the truth, because the truth is - condensing huge wodges of philosophy - a matter of shared observation.
People who uncover actual conspiracies are not "conspiracy theorists". They are, most often, called "journalists".
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't understand this at all. Do you think Chomsky is doing conspiracy theory? It seems to me that there is a big difference between say "Necessary Illusions" and the works of David Icke.freke said:
"Do you think Chomsky is doing conspiracy theory? It seems to me that there is a big difference between say "Necessary Illusions" and the works of David Icke."
I forget what Chomsky says in Necessary Illusions but I'm not sure if there's a huge amount of difference between Chomsky and Icke, it's all a matter of degrees.
I've written a piece elsewhere about this, which focuses more on the polarisation of political debate and the rise of anti-politics, but I think that Chomsky and Pilger are conspiratorial in that they do pre-suppose that US government actions (in particular) are directed by a small cabal of individuals and corporations acting in their own self interest directly against the interests of 'the people' (variously defined).
Once readers accept Chomsky's thesis - that those in power 1) are all connected; 2) only ever act in their own self-interest, and against ours, it is a relatively small step to conspiraloondoom. Also, as I said above, one of the more pernicious elements of his writing style (and Pilger's) is to make wild connections between various elements. (An example would be his habit of quoting the New York Times's token right-wing columnist, but to credit this to the NYT, and then use this as evidence that the liberal press are actually (secret squirrel style, I can reveal this to you) right wing.)
Raison:
"A pernicious effect of over-reading Chomsky etc... what do you mean?"
Chomsky's a polemicist, as is Pilger. They both manipulate facts to construct a narrative that fits their pre-ordained positions. A few months ago I took apart a Pilger piece on U75 pointing out all the misquotes and historical 'mistakes' he made that only served to back up his weak analysis. If I have a minute I'll see if i can find it. Believing in polemicists is more of a faith thing - if you only ever wanna hear what you wanna hear, there ain't nothing I can say that will change your mind. (Just like conspiraloons.)
Publishers know that a book promising to reveal all about "the murderous plots of the CIA" is going to sell more than one that tells all about "the inter-agency dynamics of the US foreign policy system", but which one is more likely to inform the reader, and which more likely to mislead?
Laptop - I was thinking the same thing as you last night. So many people (particularly young men) want to believe that they are the only ones with the answer, they possess the secret truth that no-one else knows. They are Morpheus and the rest of us are in the dark, but one day the truth will be revealed, and they shall stand before us all, the vanguard, gloriously taking us towards a wonderful future ...
I forget what Chomsky says in Necessary Illusions but I'm not sure if there's a huge amount of difference between Chomsky and Icke, it's all a matter of degrees.
I've written a piece elsewhere about this, which focuses more on the polarisation of political debate and the rise of anti-politics, but I think that Chomsky and Pilger are conspiratorial in that they do pre-suppose that US government actions (in particular) are directed by a small cabal of individuals and corporations acting in their own self interest directly against the interests of 'the people' (variously defined).
Once readers accept Chomsky's thesis - that those in power 1) are all connected; 2) only ever act in their own self-interest, and against ours, it is a relatively small step to conspiraloondoom. Also, as I said above, one of the more pernicious elements of his writing style (and Pilger's) is to make wild connections between various elements. (An example would be his habit of quoting the New York Times's token right-wing columnist, but to credit this to the NYT, and then use this as evidence that the liberal press are actually (secret squirrel style, I can reveal this to you) right wing.)
Raison:
"A pernicious effect of over-reading Chomsky etc... what do you mean?"
Chomsky's a polemicist, as is Pilger. They both manipulate facts to construct a narrative that fits their pre-ordained positions. A few months ago I took apart a Pilger piece on U75 pointing out all the misquotes and historical 'mistakes' he made that only served to back up his weak analysis. If I have a minute I'll see if i can find it. Believing in polemicists is more of a faith thing - if you only ever wanna hear what you wanna hear, there ain't nothing I can say that will change your mind. (Just like conspiraloons.)
Publishers know that a book promising to reveal all about "the murderous plots of the CIA" is going to sell more than one that tells all about "the inter-agency dynamics of the US foreign policy system", but which one is more likely to inform the reader, and which more likely to mislead?
Laptop - I was thinking the same thing as you last night. So many people (particularly young men) want to believe that they are the only ones with the answer, they possess the secret truth that no-one else knows. They are Morpheus and the rest of us are in the dark, but one day the truth will be revealed, and they shall stand before us all, the vanguard, gloriously taking us towards a wonderful future ...
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
that's a bit patronising, but then i guess if you can't argue a point just say something patronising......freke said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think this is a very strange view, at least when it comes to Chomsky's major political books.freke said:
In Necessary Illusions for example, he's extremely clear that he's talking about institutional characteristics of the media under capitalism and not about conspiracies of individuals. Where he is talking about the decisions of individuals, e.g. in reference to the origins of the Vietnam war, he's producing the NSC documents embodying those decisions, and hence while he may well be discussing a 'conspiracy', it's a conspiracy in the sense laptop referred to above, rather than in the sense of speculative fiction about lizards and stuff.
ill-informed - did you forget to type out the bit of your argument that addressed the points I made? Or is it just a piece of irony because of your name?
bernie, I just don't have the same respect for Chomsky as you do. Political analysis for me has to be more than trotting out the same tired NSC documents (ie NSC48, George Kennan etc) and then loading these handful of pieces of evidence with enormous conclusions. There might be an element of truth to some of it, but the presentation of facts and conclusions is frequently downright shoddy and always from a fixed political position.
Edited to add ... and Bernie, you're not addressing point I made: Chomsky opens the door to conspiratorial thinking, by arguing powerfully that 1) there is a small cabal of people in charge of government and business; 2) they only ever act in their own self interest. If you accept these two points then you are half-way towards accepting conspiracy theories. (This is not to say that you *will* accept conspiracy theories, but as you have already accepted a set of conspiratorial ideas, it must be more likely.)
bernie, I just don't have the same respect for Chomsky as you do. Political analysis for me has to be more than trotting out the same tired NSC documents (ie NSC48, George Kennan etc) and then loading these handful of pieces of evidence with enormous conclusions. There might be an element of truth to some of it, but the presentation of facts and conclusions is frequently downright shoddy and always from a fixed political position.
Edited to add ... and Bernie, you're not addressing point I made: Chomsky opens the door to conspiratorial thinking, by arguing powerfully that 1) there is a small cabal of people in charge of government and business; 2) they only ever act in their own self interest. If you accept these two points then you are half-way towards accepting conspiracy theories. (This is not to say that you *will* accept conspiracy theories, but as you have already accepted a set of conspiratorial ideas, it must be more likely.)
bernie, I gotta run, but have just realised that I didn't read your previous post properly, I'll take a look at it when I get home, but am sure that Necessary Illusions does assume that 'those in power' (Them) manipulate the media to exploit the masses (Us). It's a slippery slope...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Fair enough, I'm meant to be working today too 
It may be a question of definitions. For me, the acid test might be something like "if the individual actors were arbitarily changed, could we expect the system to behave in the same way?" if the answer tends to be yes, then it's not a conspiracy, but rather a systemic problem that's being described. I think that's what's happening in Chomsky's stuff about e.g. the capitalist media.
I don't think Chomsky (& Herman) are claiming that some shadowy elite manipulate the media. I think they're claiming something along the lines that the media manipulate themselves in response to systemic economic and political pressures, albeit in a way that serves elite interests. So their argument resembles market theories rather more than conspiracy theory.
In reference to the points you say I'm not replying to above, I think they're factually wrong, at least when applied to the "Propaganda Model" stuff (I'm not so certain about Chomsky's various interviews and articles because I haven't read all of them and in some of the ones I have read I think that he's being less precise than he is in his major works). I do think that you might have a point when you say that this stuff 'encourages' conspiracy theory, insofar as it's an influential critique which in effect says: "the official version of reality presented in the media is, at least in part, propaganda serving elite interests and filters out inconvenient truths"
I can see how that encourages conspiracy theories, because it does support the notion of a false "official" reality which tends to obscure atrocious crimes.
That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory itself though, at least in the sense in which I understand conspiracy theories. For me, a conspiracy theory is one which argues that "official reality" is being conciously manipulated by a cabal of powerful individuals, scaly or otherwise, for nefarious and secretive ends. Whereas Chomsky & Herman are arguing that 'official reality' is shaped by a set of economic and political forces which aren't a bit mysterious, through which elite interests are mediated, rather than by any secret cabal pulling strings.
It may be a question of definitions. For me, the acid test might be something like "if the individual actors were arbitarily changed, could we expect the system to behave in the same way?" if the answer tends to be yes, then it's not a conspiracy, but rather a systemic problem that's being described. I think that's what's happening in Chomsky's stuff about e.g. the capitalist media.
I don't think Chomsky (& Herman) are claiming that some shadowy elite manipulate the media. I think they're claiming something along the lines that the media manipulate themselves in response to systemic economic and political pressures, albeit in a way that serves elite interests. So their argument resembles market theories rather more than conspiracy theory.
In reference to the points you say I'm not replying to above, I think they're factually wrong, at least when applied to the "Propaganda Model" stuff (I'm not so certain about Chomsky's various interviews and articles because I haven't read all of them and in some of the ones I have read I think that he's being less precise than he is in his major works). I do think that you might have a point when you say that this stuff 'encourages' conspiracy theory, insofar as it's an influential critique which in effect says: "the official version of reality presented in the media is, at least in part, propaganda serving elite interests and filters out inconvenient truths"
I can see how that encourages conspiracy theories, because it does support the notion of a false "official" reality which tends to obscure atrocious crimes.
That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory itself though, at least in the sense in which I understand conspiracy theories. For me, a conspiracy theory is one which argues that "official reality" is being conciously manipulated by a cabal of powerful individuals, scaly or otherwise, for nefarious and secretive ends. Whereas Chomsky & Herman are arguing that 'official reality' is shaped by a set of economic and political forces which aren't a bit mysterious, through which elite interests are mediated, rather than by any secret cabal pulling strings.
freke said:
And with that you demonstrate you have not grasped things yet. To make change for the better, the last platform to do so is from a political one. The main outcome of politics is division. This is vital to continue in power.
It's because of politics as a default in our societies that we have perpetual war.
It's because of politics that we get the likes of 911. Not terrorism. That is a means to the end. It is politics that creates every single unpleasantness in the human world.
editor
hiraethified
If I felt that my family was under such threat, I'd gather evidence, leave the country and then make damn sure the whole world knew about the precise circumstances of the threat.fela fan said:
The last thing I'd do is meekly accept some pile of government lies, issue statements saying I was happy with the result and then carry on as if nothing had happened.
freke said:
More unsubstantiated rubbish. You say chomsky and pilger are polemicists. You give zero reasons to back this claim up, except that you say they are.
And then, what you say to laptop, well include yourself young man. Coz That's exactly your thinking with regard to your ridiculous claim - dressed up as fact - over chomsky and pilger.
You're a wannabe mate. You're jealous of the likes of those two icons of journalism.
freke said:
You sure are doing a good turn in rhetoric here, but that's all. Why don't you give us your evidence/arguments against chomsky claiming that a small cabal rule things for their own self-interest?
You just claim things as fact with nothing to back it up. I'd reckon you'd do well in the british press...
editor said:
Yeah, well i retain the kid's knack of being able to laugh so hard it splits my sides.
I'm only 'grown up' when i want to be. I like being like a kid. It's fun. Try it instead of insisting on being grown up all the time.
Btw, would you really put your family's life at risk in your drive to let the world know about what had pissed you off?
Similar threads
- Locked