| u-Bob |
03-21-2012 08:20 AM |
about 9/11:
Was there a conspiracy? Of course. Unless you think that one and the same individual hijacked all 4 planes, there was by definition a conspiracy.
Was there a cover up? Most probably yes. It's said that every success has many fathers, but every failure's an orphan. In every organization, when something goes right, when a project is successful or profitable, there will be many people ready to take the credit. When something goes wrong, most people will distance themselves. When something goes wrong most people will deny they were responsible. When something goes terribly wrong most people will even try to hide the fact that they were involved or might have had the opportunity to prevent the bad things from happening. This is especially true of large bureaucratic structures.
Regarding conspiracies, asking questions and integrity:
Butler Shaffer's spot on:
Quote:
I have lost my sense of humor to indulge those who reflexively deny the role of conspiracies in human affairs. In the months following 9/11 ? and most strenuously in the days leading up to the fifth anniversary of this event ? conventional thinking has dictated that commentaries on that atrocity carry the disclaimer ?I am not suggesting a conspiracy.? It seems to be understood that entrance to the temples of respectable journalism, academic scholarship, or polite society would be denied anyone who transgressed this canon.
It is not that a speaker must refrain from expressing any particular conspiracy theory to explain troublesome occurrences: one must avoid the implication that any form of human behavior might be directed or influenced by conspiratorial forces. To even consider the possibility that a given event might have been produced by a conspiracy, is to run the risk of being labeled a ?paranoid? or a ?wacko.? As we have no desire to appear foolish in the eyes of others, we give in to such intimidation and preface our opinions with the aforesaid mantra.
How easily most of us sell out our intellectual integrity, and at distress-sale prices. Even men and women with excellent minds who should know better have collapsed in the face of such a charge. Do we have such a fear of our own minds that we can no longer stand up to the epistemological inquiry that is at the base of our character and intelligence: how do we know what we know? Upon what basis do we form our opinions about the world: the consensus of our neighbors, or our independent judgments?
Any intellectually respectable opinion must be well-grounded in empirical fact and rational analysis. I have no use for those who spin conspiratorial theories out of little more than fantasy, wishful thinking, or the failure to distinguish a temporal relationship from a causal one. The assumption that because event ?X? occurred, and was followed by event ?Y,? a causal connection has been established, is among the shabbiest forms of reasoning. One might just as well argue for the proposition that wet sidewalks cause rain. In fact, I have no use for conspiracy theories at all, preferring ? as my late friend, Chris Tame, so well stated it ? to focus attention on the facts of conspiracies! As annoying as those are who offer lazy, simple-minded explanations for complex events, I am far more aggravated by those otherwise intelligent souls who help to man the barricades of ignorance against honest and empirically-based inquiries into topics they have been told are beyond rightful questioning.
As the events of 9/11 continue ? like a monster movie ? to provide us with fear-ridden entertainment, let me use them to illustrate my point. There have been numerous DVDs, articles, books, and other works that challenge the government's ?official? explanations for these attacks. While some of these presentations test one's credulity, others have provided purported evidence which, if true, would lead intelligent minds to demand further investigation. To say this, however, is not to give credence to any particular theory that one might offer as a counter-explanation to the ?official? one. It is only to suggest that a further examination might be merited.
To ask empirically based questions is not to make an accusation, but only to pursue the ?cui bono?? question as a point of departure for uncovering wrongdoing. When a government official was murdered in ancient Rome, it was customary to begin the investigation with that question: ?who benefited?? My wife and I are fans of the Inspector Morse television mysteries produced by the BBC. In a recent rerun, a man was murdered, and the first question out of Morse's mouth was ?who stood to benefit from this man's death??
The answer to the ?cui bono? question does not necessarily identify the culprit, but it is a very rational place from which to begin asking questions. To be a suspect is not to be accused. If a woman is found murdered, her husband will probably be the first one interviewed by the police in an effort to find her killer. If the victim had a one-million dollar insurance policy on her life, with her husband as the beneficiary, this will add to the intensity of the investigation. This does not, of course, prove that the husband was responsible for his wife's death, only that it is sensible for the police to intensify their inquiry as to him.
I spoke to a young college student the other day. He informed me that he had asked his political science professor whether he thought it possible that persons within the United States government might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. His professor adamantly denied even the possibility, saying that American government officials were too decent to ever do such a thing. Is this what passes for ?science? in the study of government?
If this academician is prepared to be disabused of his delusions of faith in political systems, he might want to go to ?Google,? and enter the phrase ?Operation Northwoods.? Numerous entries will appear, with the first one ? from Wikipedia ? providing, perhaps, the greatest amount of information on this 1962 scheme by leading Defense Department officials. The plan was to have terrorist acts committed in various American cities ? including Washington, D.C. ? in which people would be shot; bombings would take place and planes hijacked; while ?evidence? would be fabricated implicating the Castro regime with such acts. One proposal in the plan called for the destruction of an empty drone plane ? which, people would be told, carried American college students on a holiday. All of these contrived ?attacks? would then be used as a justification for an attack on Cuba. This plan had the written support of all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including its chairman.
That top U.S. government officials could concoct such a deadly plan as a pretext for war in no way proves that 9/11 was a similarly contrived event. What it does do, however, is strip away some of the high-school civics class veneer of the state that leads most Americans, including the aforesaid political science professor, to dismiss in knee-jerk fashion and without any felt need to examine the evidence, the idea that their government could engage in such calculated wrongdoing. In light of the lies, forgeries, cover-ups, and other deceptions leading to a ?war? in Iraq, how can any intellectually honest person categorically deny the possibility of the involvement of American political interests in 9/11?
|
|
