I was taking a break from posting, but A has inspired me with his rantings. GO ANDREW!!!
Interesting about the whole M1 M2 M3 thing. Basically, it sounds like a way of hiding knowledge. No doubt the USA will try to keep it's dwindling world fiscal influence hidden (from Americans) as other countries divest of the petrodollars -- but American military dominance will perhaps increase. I imagine this whole Iran conflict is exacerbated by OPEC moving off the dollar as well as the USA having shrinking reserves?
I don't see the nuclear bomb as the major issue on Iran, b/c the country that's acting the craziest already has nukes -- and Bush actually discussed potentially using them against Iran!!! Low-yield battlefield nukes used in a war to suppress a country developing nuclear weapon capacities. It's doublethink to the 3rd power!!!
I guess if the whole crisis is about American oil hegemony and $$ powers slipping, no wonder Bush is ready to overspend and overcommit every last ounce of American military juice to the region! He's not only protecting the family oil fortunes, but also his Saudi relationship as well...
All this doesn't make me think less of the conspiracies bandied about.
(Neither did that tape of the plane hitting the Pentagon!!! Did anyone watch that tape?!?!? I've been volunteering and shooting video for 3 years now -- that thing was crap! And the most outrageous part is all the videos footage that was confiscated -- within hours of the attacks! That's what I call a quick government response!!!)
Can anyone on this blog refute these statements (please?):
a) the election in 2000 was sabotaged by illegal Republican jury-rigging of ballots and voting equipment, and other various Florida election scandals, thus resulting in a President who did not win the election getting into office. The recount effort was also blocked by Republicans.
b) the 9/11 attacks were known by some American secret service organizations, but Bush did not act to stop the attacks. (We all saw his famous 7 minutes of hanging out, right?)
c) after 9/11, Bush's powers increased tremendously and he acted with incredible speed to expand surveilance internally in the USA, begin torturing people not charged with any crimes, violating international laws, and ultimately invading a country that had strategic oil value -- but was not an enemy capable of doing the USA harm at the time.
d) Election 2004 was also sabotaged by vote-machine rigging in Ohio and Florida, and a Green recount effort showed evidence of wrong-doing but was not followed up by government investigations.
e) Bush has lied to Americans and Congress about Intel reports.
f) if Clinton had done ANY of these acts, he would have been impeached and perhaps tried for treason by now
and therefore
g) a coup took place in the USA after the y2k elections, was cemented into power by the 9/11 attacks and subsequent beginning of a vaguely defined war against a nationless mysterious secret enemy, and 2004 once again shows the power of the Republican neo-fascists.
If someone can disprove g) I'd be interested to know the logic.
Andrew, thanks for inspiring me to put up a FAT rant!!! HA HA
posted by R·E @ 1:20 AM
7 Comments:
Ari, I am not going to debunk your conspiracy theories. There are many books, magazine articles, web sites, etc. that do that very well, but I suspect there could never be enough proof to satisfy you. I do find it amusing that these theories (and you by extension) will grab onto the flimsiest strand of evidence for these theories, but demand incontrovertible proof for the ‘official’ story.
If you believe 911 was an ‘inside’ job, do you also question the first WTC attack, the Khobar towers, London, Madrid, Bali, the USS Cole, our African embassies, the latest foiled airline plot? Or are all of these myths too?
And frankly – this gets back to my original questions for you a while back – I am stunned that you ACTUALLY believe these theories rather than just entertaining them intellectually. This throws me for a loop, and makes me wonder how you can continue to function in society believing that your representative government willfully and maliciously massacred thousands of its own citizens.
I have many excellent conversations with friends and coworkers who hate Bush, believe the Iraq war was a mistake, etc., but none of them believe this claptrap about conspiracies. My hope for you is that you reel it back in, and develop a more sane approach to opposing government policies rather than this really paranoid LaRouche-like view that sees evil intent and mysterious cabals rather than rational disagreement over the correct course of action.
Anyway, my opinion on each of your 7 points:
a) Not true – Bush won, as shown by recounts conducted by major newspapers. Unfounded suggestions of vote rigging is sore loser talk. However, both parties behaved reprehensibly in the aftermath, and the Supreme Court handed down an embarrassing decision in Bush v. Gore. The Florida court didn’t do much better.
b) Huh? So is the new argument that “they knew”, sort of like Pearl Harbor? Is this a backing down from the Grand Conspiracy Theory?
c) Presidential powers have increased tremendously, under Clinton and now Bush. This is bad for the country and for democracy. Saying that Bush acted with “incredible speed” to do anything is laughable. The US has engaged in controversial techniques that some would call torture and others aggressive interrogation; these have never been used against a US citizen, or for criminal matters, but only for enemy combatants in a declared war. But in any event I am opposed to this expansion of federal power in general, and in the executive in specific.
d) Again, there is no proof of voting-machine rigging, nor that there was any conspiracy to alter the voting records. I will agree that officials of both major parties have way too much control over election procedures in their districts, but focusing on one party in the closest of races is sore loser talk.
e) Huh?
f) I don’t get bringing Clinton into this… the man who pushed through welfare reform has to be WAY to the right of you! I don’t think the Republicans, as much as they hated Clinton, would impeach him during wartime. But I could be wrong because they are by and large a bunch of fat bastards who’d sell their own mother for votes.
g) A coup takes place every four years… it’s called an election. The 911 attacks were forced upon the Bush administration, not orchestrated by them, and this “mysterious enemy” seems to keep popping up and announcing their presence (boom, pow, surprise!). Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t make it wrong, and just because you don’t like their policies doesn’t make them fascist. This sort of hyperbole helps no one, particularly if you are trying to convince anyone of your rationality.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erik,
Whether an event is "myth" or the cause was a conspiracy seems a curious method of arguing two points without valid arguments for either. Did those attacks happen? They seem to have happened. Who was responsible for all of them? Good question on that one.
Once again -- have you ever read 1984?
Also, thanks for keeping the attacks focussed on 'the facts' and not making them personal. NOT
"I am stunned that you ACTUALLY believe these theories ... This ... makes me wonder how you can continue to function in society..."
I really enjoy these commentaries. I have my undergrad degree in US History, and you have yours in Music, correct?
Do you know anything about this country's history? Where did the 'genocide' of Native Americans and deaths of millions of Africans take place? What about
Do you think the USA did not allow millions of people and hundreds of thousands of Americans to die in the Viet Nam and Korean wars?
As to this comment: "believing that your representative government willfully and maliciously massacred thousands of its own citizens", the mis-statement there is "your representative govt". As Bush was not legally elected, IMHO, he is not vested with legal authority. His regime has aborted the Democratic process.
Another conspiracy theory point --> remember the anthrax letters? Did you ever hear what happened to them? Better yet, did you hear that abortion clinics were targetted with the letters? Who has all this Anthrax anyway? Oh, the USA? Hmmm I guess that was Al Queda walking into America's weapons labs and using our Anthrax against us too, right? Couldn't have been American groups, right?
If you ever listened to Bush Sr, you might have heard him talk about his eagerness to get over the VietNam hangover. Viet Nam is seen by the Right as the only war the USA lost -- b/c of Americans, not Vietnamese.
The WTC attack seems to have worked to fix that hangover, hasn't it? Now the USA has a 'war' against arbitrary Islamic non-agressing countries, Americans allow torture of people who are non-combatants, and the basic freedoms that this country stood for are trampled on.
Gee, that IS progress, and clearly no sign of wealth conspiracies going on!
I may seem like a whacko to you, but you seem like you've got your head buried in the sand. Or Fox media, which is the same thing.
re: your comments:
a) Bush won? Don't think so.
b) I believe Bush knew the attacks were coming, but don't think he knew much specifically when things were going down beyond "sit there and shut up and you'll be king".
c) "controversial techniques .. some would call torture and others aggressive interrogation; ... never been used against a US citizen, or for criminal matters, but only for enemy combatants in a declared war." Wow, where does this lovely view of torture come from?
You left off one word -- YET.
So, how do you think Americans would feel if this was general practice against American combatants by all other countries? This is DUMB logic!
d) No proof of voting machine rigging. INCORRECT
e) Bush lied about intelligence reports to fabricate a reason to attack Iraq. Even Colon Powell hinted at this issue.
f) Clinton is not my idea of Left, but he was not an aggressive, empire expanding, ignorant, neo-fascist either. Also, he was made of presidential material -- and he was still butchered regularly by the media. Bush says comments daily that are totally off-the-wall -- and yet the media barely touches him.
g) elections are not a coup. This is a silly point. A coup is claiming rule unjustly, violating laws to seize power. Or do you disagree that this definition is a coup as well?
The 9/11 attack was "forced on Bush", as you say, but why did Bush have information about the attacks AND method of attack before it happened? I believe he could have prevented the disaster -- but it was in his best interest to let disasters happen. Altho I'm sure you see New Orleans and think he's very active when it comes to dealing with calamities (when he's not on vacation).
Can you please comment on the evacauting of the Bin Laden family after the attacks?
Once again, I don't appreciate your personal affronts -- b/c clearly not everyone shares your political viewpoint -- but you seem compelled to try to take this to a lower level.
It's sad, as it makes me less interested in discussing issues with you at all.
"Once again, I don't appreciate your personal affronts.."
Ari, my only "personal affront" was to say that I was stunned that you actually believe these theories. This is not wordplay -- ask Javan, ask Eric, ask Sony -- I was stunned when this first popped up on the blog and asked around whether they thought you might be kidding or just taking a contrarian stance. It really, truly saddens me to realize you do believe this nonsense.
And by nonsense I mean: "The US government willfully and maliciously massacred thousands of its own citizens by perpetrating the 9/11 attacks, and then blamed them on an innocent third party."
This is not a political viewpoint, like "Bush is an idiot." This is a complete and utter divorcement from reality, for reasons I don't quite understand. Assigning motives and benefits does nothing to change the underlying facts, which all point to islamic terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.
What facts do you have that show otherwise? And I mean facts, not imagined motives nor "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" consequences. Give me your top three and we'll have a real discussion.
Can I request that we keep this conversation to one thread? Makes it easier go back and forth without responding in multiple locations.
You asked about Bin Laden's family being flown out right after 9/11. Before I give you my take, we need to clarify to what purpose are we discussing this particular event: A) As proof of the complicity of the U.S. Government in the 9/11 attacks, or B) As proof of the bumbling ham-handedness of the government's response to the attacks. I wish we were discussing "B" because we'd find agreement on many things and could have an interesting discussion around areas where our views diverge. And you could throw out things like "Bush is an idiot because of..." and you'd have me over a barrel in many cases (assuming I was simply trying to defend Bush, which I'm not). Alas, we're discussing "A" still.
About Bin Laden's family: they disassociated themselves with Osama over a decade prior. Why? Because they are favorites of the Saudi royals and capitalists extraordinaire, and Osama, like a rich family's hippy son who runs off to join an ashram, spurned his family and turned to radical Islamicism, and lost his Saudi citizenship in 1994 due to terrorist activities.
Obviously our government knew about Osama and his cohorts, and their declaration of war against the U.S. and the west and infidels in general (including non-radical muslims), and in fact under Clinton -- I forget, is he in on the Big Lie too? -- lobbed a few cruise missiles at his camps in Afghanistan and at an aspirin factory in Sudan. So on the day of the 9/11 attacks, anyone who had been paying attention in the prior decade knew who was the likely culprit. Even Howard Stern of all people called it on that day.
Bush and co. are very close to the Saudi royals and oil people. Way too close, disgustingly close. Our appeasement and support of this dictatorial regime is an embarrassment.
So when Osama's organization attacked us on 9/11, one of the reactions was to ensure that his family did not experience any blowback by association... King Fahd sent an urgent message to "help protect the innocents," meaning Bin Laden family members that had nothing to do with Osama (and implying, of course, that Osama was behind the attacks).
So yes, the family members were allowed to leave - three days after the attacks, when airspace was reopened. The idea that they were given special clearance to leave before anyone else has been widely debunked, check the NY Times or Snopes. But they were under the protection of the FBI until then, and given special treatment not afforded to others. But this shows the mindset of a government that believed Osama's organization perpetrated the attacks, not one that was trying to weave a disinformation campaign to cover up a massive conspiracy.
[OK, next fact? What would you like to discuss? Thermite? Fake cell phone calls? Lack of United 93 wreckage? Dealer's choice.]
Erik,
Interesting response.
I'm happy to leave it at that.
The USA got attacked by some major terrorist organization, and *before the airline shutdown was over*, Bush' first move is evacuate the family of who he saw as the head terrorist -- so no innocents get hurt?
Wow, when did Bush start caring so much about foreigners?
He doesn't seem to care about S.Americans if you look at US Foreign Policy towards Venezuala/Brasil/Argentina, Africans w/AIDS b/c Bush has blocked cheap production of HIV meds, Bush advocates torture of civilians, and clearly doesn't care about Afghani people...
But he's worried about the Bin Laden family? Hmmm...
OK, sounds reasonable to me.
"Oooops, he made a mistake" by letting the people who might have the most info on the biggest suspected terrorist go ... oh wait, I mean by helping them get away to safety ... and that's all.
Sure. Reasonable. After all, he's just a dummy, right?
Strange -- when I look at the Bush Presidency, Bush doesn't seem very stupid...
Tax cuts -- got 'em. Trying to make permanent.
Ongoing War against 'whomever', and just trust Bush to tell us how it's going -- got it.
Torture is now acceptible -- got it.
Billions of $$$ into war machine -- got it.
Haliburton w/no bid contracts -- got multiple.
Oil jumped over $3 -- got it.
Oil co's have highest profits of all-time -- got it.
Enron sucked dry, Calif econonmy attacked w/o govt intervention -- got it.
(And Ken Lay is dead -- I don't believe that either, frankly.)
Arnold gets in w/Total Recall -- got it.
Frankly, the only things Bush hasn't gotten is ... abortion is still legal, gays can be public, and I am not forced to pray to Jesus every day.
So I may think Bush is assinine, backwards, continuously violates the law w/o consequence, is a traitor, and other things -- but I doubt he's as stupid as we're supposed to believe.
If he really IS stupid, he's riding that stupidity to major successes for wealth and priviledge in the USA.
Ari: Once again -- have you ever read 1984?
Me: That doesn't make any sense or further a discussion because a piece of literature does not inevitably lead to a single view on a current worldwide conflagration.
Ari: Also, thanks for keeping the attacks focussed on 'the facts' and not making them personal...I have my undergrad degree in US History, and you have yours in Music, correct?
Me: claiming superior authority because of a degree is an ad hominem attack; stand on your reason or your research not an award from 10 years ago (I was voted in as Chief Justice at CCHS!)
Ari: Where did the 'genocide' of Native Americans and deaths of millions of Africans take place?
Me: the death of millions of blacks also took place in Africa, and the death of Millions of whites has occurred in Asia, Europe, both Americas. For people not one your bandwidth, you have to more than insinuate things, after reciting an inarguably true but simple fact (black people died in America) you need to tell us what that's supposed to mean to you (Bush directed brown guys to fly planes into buildings in New York?).
Ari: As Bush was not legally elected, IMHO, he is not vested with legal authority.
Me: The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with authority to decide this issue and it did, which the named parties in that suit acquiescing to the result. That’s all you get if you believe that this nation should be ruled by law deriving from the Constitution. What alternative do you propose? If not the law, administered by those appointed under its strictures, who will decide? Me? You?
Ari: If you ever listened to Bush Sr, you might have heard him talk about his eagerness to get over the VietNam hangover… The WTC attack seems to have worked to fix that hangover, hasn't it?
Me: that is extremely weak from a logical viewpoint. A dad is pissed off about Vietnam, so the son organizes hundreds of people to kill thousands of people so he can go off to Iraq and kill thousands more? If the son had the intention to relieve dad’s hangover, why not orchestrate the Vietnamese to do the bombing and go after the hair of the dog? Or just invade Iraq without the complicated and discoverable plot to blow up the buildings? Your theory is to attenuated and complicated to stand on its own reasoning.
Post a Comment
<< Home