Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Better the Devil You Know
The Village Voice's Jarrett Murphy reports from the nether regions of the "9/11 Truth Movement," that collection of activist-sleuths who don't accept the official account of September 11. Some of them are cagy about admitting it, but in general they seek solace in the comforting thought that Bush and his cronies were behind the attacks.
They don't call it a comforting thought, of course:
"I'd love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to come to me and say I'm full of shit. It hasn't happened," says [Dylan] Avery.
That's a standard cliche of the fringe theorist: that he'd "love to be proven wrong." But is there anyone in the country who wouldn't be delighted to learn that the forces behind 9/11 are based in Washington, D.C.? That the enemy is not some exotic conspiracy of mysteriously motivated foreigners who speak impenetrable languages and fade easily into an alien landscape, but a familiar group of Republicans with Middle American accents who would be ousted the moment their cabal came to light? The Bush-did-it theory lends itself to a tidy movie ending, a conclusion far preferable to the endless bloody soap opera we've landed in instead.
There are many reasons I don't believe the president plotted 9/11. The biggest is that I'm just not optimistic enough to think the problem could be eliminated that easily.
|2.24.06 @ 11:36AM|#
I know I've said this before, but if it turns out our government
really is in cahoots with Bin Laden, that's the most
heartening thing I've read since 9-11 happened--it means our
country is being run by a bunch of brilliant Machiavellian
geniuses, rather than the gaggle of incompetent fuckwits I suspect
we actually have.
Please God--if you exist--please tell me that the reason
our soldiers can't find Bin Laden is because they haven't looked in
the Lincoln Bedroom, or under Jenna's bed. Please.
|2.24.06 @ 11:44AM|#
I also like the idea that right this minute, Bin Laden and George W. are holed up in a Pentagon bunker getting drunk and singing a loud, off-key rendition of "Margaritaville."
|2.24.06 @ 11:45AM|#
Yeah Jennifer, everyone is incompetent. It is not that it is really hard to catch these guys. Of course it is not like we haven't killed thousands of Al Quada terrorists in Afghanistan. It is also not like we haven't captured or killed most of the top al-quada leaders. Nope, the U.S. has been completely incompetent in the last five years. I guess that is also why Al Quada has continued to hit the United States instead of places like Madrid or Bali.
|2.24.06 @ 11:48AM|#
Good call John -- it's also apparently a comforting thought to believe that the administration and military are just incompetent, and our next set of leaders will capture bin Laden and Zarqawi as a routine part of the transition process.
|2.24.06 @ 11:48AM|#
John, if we had socialized medicine, do you think that maybe then you could afford to have the stick surgically removed from your ass?
Garth|2.24.06 @ 11:56AM|#
There were "thousands" of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan?
WOW they musta been real incompetent - more so than our own gubmint
-- to only be able to hit us with one terror attack.
Methinks someone confuseth Al-Qaeda and the Taliban a wee bit. (Not
that the Taliban didn't deserve as ass-whoopin' mind you)
|2.24.06 @ 11:57AM|#
I would never argue that the military is incompetent, but anyone who thinks the Bush administration's handling of all things post-9/11 has been "competent" must have very low standards (or standards that change depending on the political party in charge).
|2.24.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Feh. Al-qaeda goes through Number Two Guys the way Spinal Tap goes through drummers.
|2.24.06 @ 11:59AM|#
"... rather than the gaggle of incompetent fuckwits I suspect we
actually have."
That's too easy an ad hominem. I can think of 100 reasons not to
like the Bush administration, not the least of which is the drunken
spend-spree it's saddling the next two generations of taxpayers
with. But to tidily sum up the entire war on terror as the work of
a slew of dunderheaded jackasses is itself a bit of fuckwittery.
You still rule 83.4 percent of the time, Jennifer.
|2.24.06 @ 12:06PM|#
Jennifer-
If we were TOTALLY incompetent then those Al Qaeda #2 guys would
combust spontaneously, without any help from American bombs.
Or are you suggesting that maybe these guys aren't as important as
we insist they are? That the guy responsible for sweeping the floor
of the cave is declared to be the #2 after we kill him, just so we
look good?
|2.24.06 @ 12:06PM|#
Napoleon's Words to Live By:
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
incompetence."
I do think that there is something strangely comforting in the
comic-book view of the world where every bad thing is caused by an
evil cabal meeting in a basement under the Federal Reserve
Building. At least there's a chance that Superman can beat Lex
Luthor in the next issue. There is nothing more terrifying than the
idea that everything we hold dear is vulnerable to some random and
otherwise completely contemptible nutcase. At least Dr. Doom and
the Bilderbergers are articulate and cultivated and have really
great tailors. If our opponents are impressive, then we must, by
extension, be important to attract their attention. If they're
nobodies with body odor, what does that make us?
|2.24.06 @ 12:06PM|#
What happened to the days when the bildebergers along with the trilateral commission, in their struggle to fulfill the protocols of the elders of zion were behind everything. Those were the good old days.
|2.24.06 @ 12:07PM|#
Good point, Jamie. Besides, once again the Iraq insurgency is in
its last throes, and I think we've 'turned the corner' again, too.
Considering how many times we've turned the corner in Iraq, I
suspect that the country is shaped like a gigantic four-dimensional
dodecahedron.
Everything in Iraq is going exactly according to plan. We're fine.
Everything is fine.
|2.24.06 @ 12:14PM|#
"Everything in Iraq is going exactly according to plan. We're
fine. Everything is fine."
You missed my point entirely. Next time, stick your thumb out and
I'll pull over.
|2.24.06 @ 12:16PM|#
Is Dylan Avery really having a hard time finding someone who
will tell him he's full of shit?
I'm glad I don't live in his neck of the woods.
|2.24.06 @ 12:19PM|#
Jamie, how do YOU explain what is going on in Iraq? I don't
think it is deliberate government malice or a huge conspiracy; I
don't think W. went in there with the intention of turning the
country into a gigantic clusterfuck. I think that when the
administration said things like 'We'll be out of there in a few
months' they probably believed it on some level.
Incompetence is the only other answer I can think of to explain the
situation. (An abysmal lack of planning and refusal to listen to
reasons why such an invasion might be less than a cakewalk count as
'incompetence' in my book.)
But if you don't think our problems are based on incompetent
leadership, then what HAS caused them, do you suppose? I don't
think anything is inherently wrong with the military; it's the way
they are being used that is the problem.
|2.24.06 @ 12:22PM|#
All I know is that, on a scale of 1 to 10, the number two guy in Al Qaeda is so evil that he rates 11.
|2.24.06 @ 12:24PM|#
We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome.
|2.24.06 @ 12:24PM|#
"... rather than the gaggle of incompetent fuckwits I
suspect we actually have."
That's too easy an ad hominem.
Jen dishes 'em out but has a hard time receiving them.
|2.24.06 @ 12:29PM|#
All I know is that, on a scale of 1 to 10, the number two
guy in Al Qaeda is so evil that he rates 11.
Which of the thousand and one Number Two guys are you referring to,
Thoreau?
|2.24.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Many people find a conspiracy comforting, because at least then
events make some sense, there is some logic. Kennedy assassinated?
People somehow find it less troubling that Johnson / CIA /
Trilateral Commission / Mafia had meetings, discussions, briefing
papers, and conventions before they decided to do it, rather than
the idea of some random nutball with a gun changing history. The
reality is that conspiracies are extremely difficult to keep quiet,
and events are far more out of control than people like to
believe.
Concerning Iraq, it is not clear to me that even if the US
government had made every decision 100% correct always at the right
time in respect of Iraq, that the situation would be that much
better. This is a very difficult undertaking, and there are many
nations, groups, and individuals (both inside and outside this
country, allies and non-allies) who have a strong interest in the
US not succeeding, and who are working very hard to see that the US
fails.
|2.24.06 @ 12:32PM|#
My point wasn't just about what's happening in Iraq. It was about the broader war on terror. Call me a kneepad-wearing supplicant, but I do believe the Bush administration has actually done some good, and I truly doubt John Kerry or Al Gore would have had a more rational, well-thought-out plan of attack. I'm pissed that Bush will not admit that the problems in Iraq are far worse than the administration line, and I'm pissed that the imprint of his religious mindset is all over the Iraqi constitution. But taking out the Taliban? Good. Stacking up the bodies of Al-Qaeda members? Good. Pointing our guns at countries that harbor these fucks? Good.
|2.24.06 @ 12:37PM|#
Concerning Iraq, it is not clear to me that even if the US
government had made every decision 100% correct always at the right
time in respect of Iraq, that the situation would be that much
better. This is a very difficult undertaking, and there are many
nations, groups, and individuals (both inside and outside this
country, allies and non-allies) who have a strong interest in the
US not succeeding, and who are working very hard to see that the US
fails.
Then maybe the government should have taken that into
consideration, before launching an unnecessary invasion on false
pretenses. Or if they HAD gone through with the invasion, maybe
they could have at least listened to, rather than fired, the
military advisers who said we'd need a LOT more troops than what we
were willing to send over there.
|2.24.06 @ 12:41PM|#
Jennifer-
All of them. They're all equally bad. They're all 11 on a scale of
1 to 10.
See, the 1-10 scale was invented in an earlier, pre-9/11 era. It
can't handle the magnitude of the threat facing us today. So what
do you do when you need that extra category to describe a new,
unspeakable evil? There's nowhere you can go. But my scale goes up
to 11. So it's 1 better.
|2.24.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Unless I'm mistaken, we've gone through a couple dozen Number Three guys, but the Original Number Two guy is still kicking it - Zawa? Zalwa? something . . . the old guy with the beard.
|2.24.06 @ 12:46PM|#
VM-
But this scale goes up to 11!
It just occured to me: The original cover of "Smell the Glove"
looks like some of the Abu Ghraib photos.
(No, I'm not trying to diminish the more serious offenses portrayed
in less widely circulated photos, I'm just seeing how many Spinal
Tap analogies can be made in the War on Terror. The drummers are
like the Al Qaeda #2 guys. 11 is there to capture to the notion of
a new, unspeakable threat that is different from ANYTHING the world
has EVER faced before, and so we must turn everything upside down.
"Smell the Glove" is like Abu Ghraib. Maybe some anti-war
protestors will start singing "Listen to what the flower people
say"?)
|2.24.06 @ 12:47PM|#
This may help clear things up
THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
by Carlo M. Cipolla
http://www.mentalsoup.com/mentalsoup/basic.htm
VM|2.24.06 @ 12:49PM|#
Thoreau:
actually...
some mutherfucker on another thread IS trying to minimize the
pictures and the torture that's going on there, so, to throw out a
quote from the movie *Clue*: "YOU'RE A LITTLE LATE!!!!!"
happy friday.
cheerio.
|2.24.06 @ 12:51PM|#
VM-
If anybody tries to show photos of anything more serious than
leashes, we should just black out those photos. Make them so black
that they're like a black mirror.
V "poe" M|2.24.06 @ 12:53PM|#
but then we would have to ask "how much more black" could we
paint the pictures, and the answer would be "none more
black".
and don't even get me started on the Mineshaft gap!
[({X prime} X) inverse)] {X prime} Y
|2.24.06 @ 1:00PM|#
Nigel Tufnel, the leader of Spinal Tap, is quite stupid.
Not saying there's any connection between that and our Iraqi
adventure (which may not be going according to plan but this is NOT
due to any failure of leadership, but was just one of those things
that couldn't possibly have been avoided).
|2.24.06 @ 1:08PM|#
But taking out the Taliban? Good.
They haven't really been entirely taken out as they still control
parts of Afghanistan. It was a good idea, though.
Stacking up the bodies of Al-Qaeda members? Good.
That is good, it's true.
Pointing our guns at countries that harbor these fucks?
Good.
Except for places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Jamie, most folks agree with all those strategies, but do you
really think that they have been accomplished competently? The
devil is in the details mind you.
Andrew Ian Dodge|2.24.06 @ 1:09PM|#
Those Bush did it morons basically write copy for Islamist's all over the world. I can't tell you how many times one of those nitwits have been quoted by Islamist's du jour. You did deep enough and most are jew-hating bastards as well.
|2.24.06 @ 1:13PM|#
I know I've said this before, but if it turns out our
government really is in cahoots with Bin Laden, that's the most
heartening thing I've read since 9-11 happened--it means our
country is being run by a bunch of brilliant Machiavellian
geniuses, rather than the gaggle of incompetent fuckwits I suspect
we actually have.
I don't know if "being in cahoots" would be exactly the right way
to put it, but I've wondered if the government might have some
incentive for not being in a hurry to catch him.
For a start, exactly what evidence is there that bin Laden was
responsible for 9/11? Mostly, it seems to be the word of the same
geniuses who told us there were WMD's in Iraq. There is a video
tape that allegedly has his admission on it, but then, ask any cop
how many false confessions the police get for major crimes every
day. I don't know exactly what his connection with 9/11 was, but I
have a feeling a good defense attorney could make a pretty good
case for him if he was ever brought to trial.
Which may explain why he's never been brought to trial.
|2.24.06 @ 1:14PM|#
I this the democratic underground? My bookmarks must have
gotten screwed up.
What in the fucking world about this board looks like the
democratic underground?
|2.24.06 @ 1:19PM|#
Is it common practice on DU for a thread to degenerate into Spinal Tap references?
|2.24.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Here's a recent video raising questions about the "official"
story behind 9/11.
It's about 80 mins long, the quality is good, and for a change,
these guys don't come across like nutjobs.
Video
Link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Enjoy
|2.24.06 @ 1:35PM|#
But if you don't think our problems are based on incompetent
leadership, then what HAS caused them, do you suppose?
And what exactly are 'your' problems? I sleep in a cave without
electricity and smell like a goat. How, exactly, is your daily life
affected by the incompetency you see?
|2.24.06 @ 1:37PM|#
And what exactly are 'your' problems? I sleep in a cave
without electricity and smell like a goat.
So you say, Osama. For all I know, you're currently snorting lines
of coke off of Jenna's bare ass even as I type this.
|2.24.06 @ 1:38PM|#
Thoreau "Listen to what the flower people say"--I have a
profound new respect for you now that I know your taste in
movies.
Jennifer: You are definitely "on" today. What little opposition
there has been so far looks like a mass of inert, bleeding
tissue.
|2.24.06 @ 1:48PM|#
BUSH: Wasssin' away again in Margaritaville
OBL: Sershin for my losshaker a salt
BUSH: Some people claim that therza woman t'blame but I know
OBL: doo-doo-doo-doo-doo
BUSH: It's the Democrasss fault!
OBL: doo-doo-doo-doo-doo
|2.24.06 @ 1:48PM|#
"Jamie, most folks agree with all those strategies, but do you
really think that they have been accomplished competently? The
devil is in the details mind you."
Not all of them, no. And not completely. And not without attempts
to damage civil liberties within our borders. After 9/11 (and still
today), I wanted Bush to flatten Afghanistan, round up every one of
those fuckers, publicly execute whoever was involved and point a
nuclear weapon at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and whoever else might
have an inkling to attack us, telling them they're fucking next and
they better stand the fuck down and deliver us any and all
terrorist operatives in their respective sandholes. We would never
have any reason to go into Iraq then.
|2.24.06 @ 1:56PM|#
Not meaning to change the subject, but speaking of 9/11, what
ever happened to the 4th plane (the one that hit the Pentagon)?
Last I heard (though i haven't kept up) it desolved into thin air
to the point that the authorities weren't even sure what the flight
number was, much less who was on board. I'd think that by now
SOMEONE would notice a plane was missing, and that Grandma never
showed up to the airport.
Anyone know what became of this?
|2.24.06 @ 1:58PM|#
I specifically remember Bush saying that we would be out of Iraq no later than three months after we went in. That's a fact and I don't really need to look it up to verify it.
|2.24.06 @ 2:00PM|#
Of course it is not like we haven't killed thousands of Al
Quada terrorists in Afghanistan. It is also not like we haven't
captured or killed most of the top al-quada leaders.
Speak for yourself, please. I haven't killed anyone all day, and
nobody at all in Afghanistan.
And how come Al-Quada never seems to run out of "top leaders"?
|2.24.06 @ 2:02PM|#
Is it common practice on DU for a thread to degenerate into
Spinal Tap references?
As opposed to, say, Star Trek references? Heh.
|2.24.06 @ 2:03PM|#
wsdave, watch the video link Russ posted above, or search for "loose change" on google. You'll find the answers you seek.
VM|2.24.06 @ 2:04PM|#
Mr. Dewitt:
dunno. maybe because they use TQM methods and empower the
employees?
ha ha. (ahem)
{crickets}
/kicks stone.
|2.24.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Matt,
Thanx for the "loose change" link; I really didn't have the time
for the video right now...
|2.24.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Not to be tedious or anything, but does anyone else find the psychology of people who so desparately need to believe that Bad Things are always caused by mysterious Bad People? These guys seems to be from the same gene pool as the guys who obsessively parsed the Zapruder film and who believe there was a spaceship crash at Roswell in 1947. I don't think they belong to either the Left or the Right so much as the Unoccupied and Disgruntled. I repeat what I said upthread, that there is some comforting in believing in the Injustice League or the Inner Circle or Cigarette Smoking Man causing trajedies instead of a bunch of unremarkable losers. The tendency to blame problems on our decadence and failure to adhere to eternal values is a close relative of the Evil Genius thought pattern, as is the believe in rabbit's feet or magic crystals or other talismans. If I do X, I'll never suffer Y.
|2.24.06 @ 2:14PM|#
After 9/11 (and still today), I wanted Bush to flatten
Afghanistan,
And what about the civilians?
round up every one of those fuckers, publicly execute whoever
was involved and point a nuclear weapon at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and whoever else might have an inkling to attack us, telling them
they're fucking next and they better stand the fuck down and
deliver us any and all terrorist operatives in their respective
sandholes.
I understand the emotions behind this, but I don't think it's a
very realistic or effective way of dealing with the problem. On the
moral side of it, if we treat civilians the way they do, how are we
different from them?
|2.24.06 @ 2:14PM|#
One of the main reasons I can't swallow the "Bush was behind
9/11" line, is that I can't find a sufficient motive.
Certainly, there's money to be made, but when you're the leader of
the most powerful government in the world that your own party fully
controls, there are more than enough ways to game the system to
make all the money you want without creating what must necessarily
be a vast conspiracy involving the hijacking of several planes, the
killing of thousands of Americans and the set-up of appropriate
fall-guys that would allow us to attack not one, but two countries.
And to do all that in less than a year. It just doesn't make enough
sense.
The other reason is simply to create a perpetual war environment in
which they could rule with tyrannical impunity, which unfortunately
makes more sense to me, although it still falls well short of
balancing risk with reward.
Truthfully, the only valid reason I can come up with for Bush to
orchestrate 9/11 is that he's pure evil, and I don't
suscribe to that magazine.
|2.24.06 @ 2:15PM|#
So, I guess we can assume that Jennifer has always been 100% right in every decision or pronouncement she has ever made. Also, she must clearly have never, under any circumstances, have had any flaws in her performance of anything. Otherwise, its farily safe to assume that she is "incompetent".
|2.24.06 @ 2:18PM|#
So, I guess we can assume that Jennifer has always been 100%
right in every decision or pronouncement she has ever
made.
Nope, I've been wrong before, but when I'm wrong nobody dies and no
parts of the world become dangerously unstable.
Also, when I'm wrong I don't have a bunch of people explaining that
really, I'm right, and who are you going to believe anyway, me or
your own lying eyes?
|2.24.06 @ 2:23PM|#
Not to be tedious or anything, but does anyone else find the
psychology of people who so desparately need to believe that Bad
Things are always caused by mysterious Bad People?
I have occasionally speculated/theorized that maybe it's because a
certain part of these people's brains are working in an overly high
gear? I forget what it's called, but human brains are pre-wired to
see patterns where none exist; that's why you'll see the "man in
the moon" even though the moon doesn't really look like any man who
has ever existed. That's also why you'll see designs in inkblots
and such.
So I'm wondering if maybe this part of the brain is overactive in
conspiracy theorists? Think about it--what is a conspiracy theorist
if not somebody who sees patterns and connections that aren't
really there?
Saying that these theorists are simply insane is an
oversimplification, I think; I've known a couple who were perfectly
sane EXCEPT for when they discuss who killed Kennedy, or where AIDS
comes from, or some such thing.
|2.24.06 @ 2:25PM|#
When I said "flatten Afghanistan," I meant pound it unmercifully
while doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. I was
just being colorful.
And when I wrote "publicly execute," I was sort of kidding.
But the spirit of my comments remains intact.
dhex|2.24.06 @ 2:25PM|#
"One of the main reasons I can't swallow the "Bush was behind
9/11" line, is that I can't find a sufficient motive."
well, depending on whose view you take of the new world order, it's
either a satanic or post-satanic baby raping conspiracy that's
shared by the elites across the world OR a perpetual police state
type joint. neither of which make that much money, comparatively
speaking.
what i can't get anyone to answer for me is this: why blow billions
on destroying the wtc when you could just blow up the planes on the
tarmac?
|2.24.06 @ 2:27PM|#
What I don�t understand about the �Bush/PNACers did it� theories is how can Bush and company appear so fallible on so many issues, yet still pull off those hijackings, use bombs to bring down the twin towers and not leave evidence or have informants popping out of the woodwork selling their stories to Oprah or CNN. I don�t see the motive either.
|2.24.06 @ 2:28PM|#
"I'd love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to
come to me and say I'm full of shit. It hasn't happened," says
[Dylan] Avery.
Hey Avery, you're full of shit.
(You're welcome; I'm just glad to be able to help.)
dhex|2.24.06 @ 2:32PM|#
"I don�t see the motive either."
because you're one of the sheeple. so am i. it's ok. we're just
comfortably sleeping until the new world order asserts power. then
when we're herded into cages, we'll appreciate what everyone was
trying to tell us (at 19.95 per video).
|2.24.06 @ 2:32PM|#
what i can't get anyone to answer for me is this: why blow
billions on destroying the wtc when you could just blow up the
planes on the tarmac?
Panache. Hell, it would be just plain un-American to conceive such
a plot without taking down two of the most recognizable buildings
in the world.
|2.24.06 @ 2:32PM|#
"watch the video link Russ posted above, or search for
"loose change" on google. You'll find the answers you
seek."
I wouldn't say that the video gives any answers, but it does ask a
lot of tough questions.
I think if they started speculating on answers to the questions,
they would have begun to sound more like the tinfoil brigade
nutbars that we're accustomed to.
|2.24.06 @ 2:34PM|#
Right at this moment, a little friend and I are dancing around a tiny Stonehenge. Oops! I almost knocked it over...
|2.24.06 @ 2:38PM|#
I'm with jennifer on the conspiracy theorists...human nature
drives us to see what we beleive...or as Emerson said "As I am, so
I see".
Of course, that does not mean what I see is correct in the absolute
sense of the word.
|2.24.06 @ 2:46PM|#
"Then maybe the government should have taken that into
consideration, before launching an unnecessary invasion on false
pretenses. Or if they HAD gone through with the invasion, maybe
they could have at least listened to, rather than fired, the
military advisers who said we'd need a LOT more troops than what we
were willing to send over there." - Jennifer
That was the basic internal debate in the US government, so of
course they took that into consideration. There is no question the
US, and the region, is better off without the Baathists in power
(Hussein did not rule alone), the problem always was is it feasible
to replace him with someone better, and worth the cost to do
so?
This is the legitimate, and serious question, which should have
been the main topic of discussion outside of government as well,
but unfortunately the opposition parties & groups in the US
could only scream "Halliburton, No Blood for Oil, Bu$h is doing it
to enrich his buddies, etc." in either direct or implied form.
Their necessary critical role was abdicated by taking positions
which made their supporters happy, but which were ludicrous.
I am unsure whether a more intrusive US military presence, with
many more soldiers walking around and arresting people, would have
greatly improved the situation. It could have made it worse, by
providing more targets, and relieving the Iraqis from having to
develop their own security forces. This is something that is given
a lot of consideration in the military and government, and the
belief is that a greater military presence would cause more harm
than good.
|2.24.06 @ 3:03PM|#
Jennifer,
This (excellent) book discusses some of the counterproductive
tendencies of the human brain to find patterns that you alluded
to.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0029117062&itm=1
|2.24.06 @ 3:05PM|#
There is no question the US, and the region, is better off
without the Baathists in power (Hussein did not rule
alone),
Actually, there IS a question about that. Certainly there are a lot
of individual Iraqis who are better off now that Hussein is gone,
but is the US as a whole better off? Hussein was already pretty
well-contained with the no-fly zones in effect; we actually had
more control over Iraq then than we do now.
Meanwhile, Iran worries me, and I think part of the reason they're
being such jerks of late is because they know damned well that if
we can't even get a handle on Iraq, we DAMN sure can't afford to do
anything to them.
The amount of Iraqis with essential services like electricity is
actually lower now than it was before we got there. And it looks
like one result of our invasion will be to replace a dickhead
secular government with a dickhead Islamic government, which isn't
such a good thing from our perspective when Islamic governments
have been the cause of so many of our troubles.
|2.24.06 @ 3:18PM|#
Here we go again. No man, let alone GWB, could possibly have his fingers in every pie in a gigantic, chaotic entity such as the US govt. Far more likely than the "Bush did it" explanation is the possibility that a faction within the govt was responsible for 9/11 without the upper echelons' knowledge.
|2.24.06 @ 3:20PM|#
Far more likely than the "Bush did it" explanation is the
possibility that a faction within the govt was responsible for 9/11
without the upper echelons' knowledge.
Are you saying this hypothetically, Crimethink, or do you think
that's actually what happened?
|2.24.06 @ 3:31PM|#
But is there anyone in the country who wouldn't be delighted
to learn that the forces behind 9/11 are based in Washington, D.C.?
That the enemy is not some exotic conspiracy of mysteriously
motivated foreigners who speak impenetrable languages and fade
easily into an alien landscape, but a familiar group of Republicans
with Middle American accents who would be ousted the moment their
cabal came to light?
Yes, it's much more comforting to think that 9/11 was perpetrated
by people who may be our friends and neighbors, who can fade easily
into our own familiar landscape, who don't look any different than
that guy sitting next to me on the airplane.
Anyone who thinks that placing the blame for a catastrophe on
"outsiders" is more upsetting than blaming those of our own social
group, is either totally ignorant of human history and psychology,
or trying a bit to hard to be clever.
|2.24.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Jennifer,
I'm open to the possibility. It does deserve more than the nervous
dismissal it receives from most people, again confirming that the
official explanation is far less disturbing than the
alternatives.
|2.24.06 @ 3:37PM|#
Somebody asked about the word used to describe the perception of
patterns that aren't really there. I think "spandrel" is the
term.
As to conspiracies, the world is and always has been a network of
competing conspiracies--but not necessarily the conspiracies that
we think we see.
Narr
|2.24.06 @ 3:38PM|#
Even if true, it would only cause Bush's appeal to be more selective. He is God's chosen leader after all.
|2.24.06 @ 3:39PM|#
Yes, it's much more comforting to think that 9/11 was
perpetrated by people who may be our friends and neighbors, who can
fade easily into our own familiar landscape, who don't look any
different than that guy sitting next to me on the
airplane.
I think the "comfort" comes from the idea that it's only one or two
shadowy people behind the problem, so presumably if you get those
one or two people out of power everything will be fine. As opposed
to our current situation, where we supposedly keep killing huge
numbers of al-Qaeda guys and yet the net amount of people who want
to do us in doesn't seem to be dropping at all.
For all the insurgents in Iraq we've supposedly gotten rid of, and
all the times we've "turned the corner," things seem no better than
before. There is no one person, or even one hundred persons, whom
we could kill or imprison right now and then say "Okay! We're safe!
Threat's gone!"
So in that light, a conspiracy theory would in fact be more
comforting than what's going on now. I think that's also why so
many people enjoy Kennedy-assassination theories; in a way, the
idea that a Big Shadow Organization is responsible for such evil is
actually more comforting than the idea that a lone lunatic, all by
himself, can cause such a catastrophe.
|2.24.06 @ 3:43PM|#
To put it another way, imagine that some new evidence came to
light which proved that the official explanation was fundamentally
wrong. Perhaps newly discovered video footage shows that a missile,
not a plane struck the Pentagon; or a circuit board with an antenna
is found attached to the navigation systems of the plane that
crashed in PA.
Do you think people will say, "Phew! Thank God it wasn't a bunch of
raghead terrorists who hated us for our freedom!"
|2.24.06 @ 3:47PM|#
If the Bushites were behind the 9/11 attacks they would have missed the World Trade Center and instead they would have plowed into a building that was scheduled for demolition.
|2.24.06 @ 3:48PM|#
To put it another way, imagine that some new evidence came
to light which proved that the official explanation was
fundamentally wrong. Perhaps newly discovered video footage shows
that a missile, not a plane struck the Pentagon; or a circuit board
with an antenna is found attached to the navigation systems of the
plane that crashed in PA. Do you think people will say, "Phew!
Thank God it wasn't a bunch of raghead terrorists who hated us for
our freedom!"
If that happened, then don't you think getting rid of the
relatively few guys responsible for the missile or circuit-baord
would be a hell of a lot easier than figuring out how to handle
millions of third-world people who hate us so much that they're
even willing to commit suicide if they can harm us by doing
so?
I think this in a way explains extreme partisanship as well--if you
can believe that ALL problems are because of The Left, or ALL
problems because of The Right, that makes solving America's
problems look a lot easier than saying "It's the left AND the right
AND some fundamental corruption in the system itself."
Much more comforting to just think "As soon as Bush leaves office,
or as soon as Hillary loses her Senate seat, everything will be
hunky-dory."
|2.24.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Much more comforting to just think "As soon as Bush leaves
office, or as soon as Hillary loses her Senate seat, everything
will be hunky-dory."
At least it will be a good day!
Jesse Walker|2.24.06 @ 3:55PM|#
Anyone who thinks that placing the blame for a catastrophe
on "outsiders" is more upsetting than blaming those of our own
social group, is either totally ignorant of human history and
psychology, or trying a bit to hard to be clever.
I will grant you that the small sliver of Americans who are part of
Bush's social group (or the social group of a secret government
within the government) would find it more upsetting.
That's not a lot of people.
Jesse Walker|2.24.06 @ 4:04PM|#
I should add, Crimethink, that my rejection of this thesis isn't
a "nervous dismissal." I would honestly love to be able to believe
that this was an inside job. If anything, I'm extra-skeptical
because I know the idea is so seductive.
Most of the people I've encountered who do believe such theories
about 9/11 show every sign of having been seduced rather than
persuaded.
|2.24.06 @ 4:05PM|#
"If that happened, then don't you think getting rid of the
relatively few guys responsible for the missile or circuit-baord
would be a hell of a lot easier than figuring out how to handle
millions of third-world people who hate us so much that they're
even willing to commit suicide if they can harm us by doing
so?"
what if there aren't 'relatively few' of them? what if are LOTS of
guys responsible, and they infest all levels of the government like
evil fascist cockroaches, and you can't crush their worldwide
conspiracy just by killing their #1 or #2 or #2,000? didja think of
THAT?
|2.24.06 @ 4:05PM|#
Jennifer,
Islamic terrorists have been willing to blow themselves up to harm
us for decades. That problem will not go away even if 9/11 was
proven to be an inside job. Rather, we'd then have two problems:
terrorists who still want to kill us, and a govt that is also ready
to kill us if it suits their purposes.
|2.24.06 @ 4:09PM|#
Jesse Walker,
You did see the part where I said I didn't think Bush did it,
right?
And by "social group", I mean not the people you go to parties
with, but people who share your race, language, and religious
beliefs.
|2.24.06 @ 4:11PM|#
Islamic terrorists have been willing to blow themselves up
to harm us for decades. That problem will not go away even if 9/11
was proven to be an inside job. Rather, we'd then have two
problems: terrorists who still want to kill us, and a govt that is
also ready to kill us if it suits their purposes.
Yes, but before 9-11 Islamic suicide terrorism was something that
happened in other countries, not here. And since a lot of Americans
make the mistake of assuming that America = the whole world, that
means that if it doesn't happen here there's no need to worry about
it. So if 9-11 proves to be an inside job, that means that we DON'T
actually have to figure out how to solve the problem in Iraq, and
DON'T have to worry so much that our dependence on Middle Eastern
oil will someday bite us in the ass; all we have to do is get a few
rotten apples out of the government and everything will be
fine.
|2.24.06 @ 4:12PM|#
r0ver,
While I suspect your comment was tongue-in-cheek, it is true that
there would have to be at least, say, a hundred people in on the
conspiracy to pull off and cover up an attack of 9/11's magnitude.
Which actually makes such a theory less plausible, though still not
as impossible as some would like to believe.
Timothy|2.24.06 @ 4:14PM|#
For all I know, you're currently snorting lines of coke off
of Jenna's bare ass even as I type this.
Is it just me or does that actually sound like a pretty damn good
Friday night?
|2.24.06 @ 4:17PM|#
"but is the US as a whole better off?" - Jennifer
Is the US as a whole better off without the Baathists in power? No,
I am certain that there are individuals and groups in the US who
were receiving financial & logistical support from the
Baathists who are much worse off now. As I stated before, the
question is whether the Baathists can be replaced with someone
better: I am not sure they can considering how many people outside
Iraq are opposed to this endeavour.
"The amount of Iraqis with essential services like electricity is
actually lower now than it was before we got there." -
Jennifer
Baathist strongholds in Sunni areas have less electricity than
before the war, areas less supportive of the Baathists have more
now. Overall production has varied between somewhat above &
below pre-war averages for the past 2 years, according to the NY
Times. Not that I think this is particularly relevant to this
discussion. The Tikritis and various foreign jihadis would not be
mollified with a few more hours per day of electricity.
http://www.iraqieconomy.org/home/infra/electricity/key/electricityproduction/view
"Hussein was already pretty well-contained with the no-fly zones in
effect; we actually had more control over Iraq then than we do
now." - Jennifer
It is unlikely that the no-fly zones could have been sustained for
much longer. Russia, France, and China were working very hard to
end them, and likely would have succeeded by now.
It is difficult to respond to the assertion that having planes
overhead on occasion (being shot at to boot) gives more control
over a country than having planes overhead AND 120,000 troops on
the ground. The latter is far more expensive, of course, but gives
you more influence over the country.
Iran is a serious concern, but the problems raised in invading Iran
are greater than for Iraq on both an ideological (ie from the
"false pretenses / HalliOilBu$hitler" crowd), and practical
(Scowcroft) basis. The Iranians have been working very hard on
their nuclear weapons program since well before 2001: the Iraq
invasion may have slowed it somewhat due to the need to disperse
their facilities to protect against potential air strikes.
|2.24.06 @ 4:17PM|#
Yes, but before 9-11 Islamic suicide terrorism was something
that happened in other countries, not here. And since a lot of
Americans make the mistake of assuming that America = the whole
world, that means that if it doesn't happen here there's no need to
worry about it.
WTC bombing of 1993?
Attempted LAX bombing of 2000?
|2.24.06 @ 4:29PM|#
WTC bombing of 1993?
Attempted LAX bombing of 2000?
Point taken. But at least it wasn't suicide terrorism. A
guy who wants to stay alive is less threatening than a guy who
doesn't care if he lives or dies.
Is the US as a whole better off without the Baathists in power?
No, I am certain that there are individuals and groups in the US
who were receiving financial & logistical support from the
Baathists who are much worse off now.
Oh, for the love of God.
It is difficult to respond to the assertion that having planes
overhead on occasion (being shot at to boot) gives more control
over a country than having planes overhead AND 120,000 troops on
the ground. The latter is far more expensive, of course, but gives
you more influence over the country.
Except for the part where the troops don't dare to venture because
they keep getting killed. Just how much influence do we have over
there, anyway? Shit keeps blowing up. Infrastructure keeps getting
attacked. Soldiers keep dying. And we aren't any closer to a sane
and stable Iraq now than we were two years ago.
|2.24.06 @ 4:29PM|#
crimethink,
no, I was being entirely serious. it obviously wasn't just a couple
of guys with a missile and a circuit board. it was a big
deal.
everybody else,
why is it so hard to think of dubya/rummy/deadeye as Evil rather
than Stupid? W's not Stupid. and neither is his army of fascist
cockroaches. it's the Electorate that's Stupid. wtf? TWO
TERMS?!!!
Timothy|2.24.06 @ 4:33PM|#
That's a way to win friends and influence people, there r0ver. Just keep callin' 'em stupid until they agree with you. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
|2.24.06 @ 4:36PM|#
timothy, do you think it was a good idea for our country to
elect W twice? i could be more gentle and say the voters are
uninformed or apathetic or lacking in imagination.
or i could stop worrying about W in particular, because obviously
kerry's a roach too. THEY'RE ALL EVIL! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
ChooseLife|2.24.06 @ 4:38PM|#
Jen, I used to enjoy your posts however you're getting a slight more, dare I say it, trollish every day, especially when the subject is Iraq - you're dominating these comment sections with your dubious statements claimed as fact, but they're really just opinion. You're not looking too good when you rant and rave against Bush's war like a DU poster. Sorry for getting personal, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Dave W.|2.24.06 @ 4:39PM|#
If anything, I'm extra-skeptical because I know the idea is
so seductive.
and because FOIAs are labor intensive, even for a journalist.
|2.24.06 @ 4:43PM|#
you're dominating these comment sections with your dubious
statements claimed as fact, but they're really just
opinion
Care to be more specific?
Jesse Walker|2.24.06 @ 4:47PM|#
You did see the part where I said I didn't think Bush did
it, right?
Yep.
And by "social group", I mean not the people you go to parties
with, but people who share your race, language, and religious
beliefs.
It is astonishingly easy to demonize people who share your race,
your language, and some of your beliefs.
|2.24.06 @ 4:48PM|#
and because FOIAs are labor intensive, even for a
journalist
But insinuations are easy!
|2.24.06 @ 4:48PM|#
I was being entirely serious. it obviously wasn't just a
couple of guys with a missile and a circuit board. it was a big
deal.
What was the conspirators' motivation, do you think? If they wanted
an excuse to invade Iraq, why did they start with Afghanistan
first? And if they were able to pull off such a brilliant stunt
without getting caught, then why couldn't they also make it look
like Iraq really DID have WMDs, rather than changing stories and
saying "Oh, uh, we went there to establish a democracy; that was
our intent all along?"
And why did they claim the majority of non-existent hijackers were
from Saudi Arabia if they didn't want to invade that country? In
light of what happened after the attack, wouldn't it have made more
sense to blame Afghans and Iraqis?
|2.24.06 @ 5:01PM|#
Timothy-
You really don't want to go up against ADM. Their henchmen have
guns that fire when bumped.
|2.24.06 @ 5:20PM|#
What was the conspirators' motivation, do you
think?
There could be several, but the question that needs to be asked is
cui bono? The War on Terror has been a boon for government
power, military budgets, and for corporations with government
connections.
Timothy|2.24.06 @ 5:24PM|#
Thoreau: Doesn't that make going up against ADM safer? I mean won't the henchmen off themselves before ever getting around to me?
|2.24.06 @ 5:24PM|#
Jennifer,
"What was the conspirators' motivation, do you think?"
ok, honestly, I don't know any more about this than the next guy,
and I'm still on the fence about whether the government was
involved, but I'll keep going here: I'm in crimethink's camp on
this one. I think the conspirators wanted a guaranteed way to scare
the shit out of OUR country so they could control it more, um,
fascistly. scared people do what they're told and don't ask about
'rights.'
"If they wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, why did they start with
Afghanistan first?"
PR. there was no 911-related reason to attack Iraq. hitting
Afghanistan made them look like they had a real plan.
"And if they were able to pull off such a brilliant stunt without
getting caught, then why couldn't they also make it look like Iraq
really DID have WMDs, rather than changing stories and saying "Oh,
uh, we went there to establish a democracy; that was our intent all
along?"
this is a mystery. they're not Stupid, but maybe they can't get it
right every time.
"And why did they claim the majority of non-existent hijackers were
from Saudi Arabia if they didn't want to invade that country? In
light of what happened after the attack, wouldn't it have made more
sense to blame Afghans and Iraqis?"
the roaches have lots of friends in the SA government, maybe.
easier to get identities from there.
all in all, what I think is that probably the government didn't
plan the attacks, but knew about them, didn't stop them, and put a
plan in place to milk the aftershocks for all they were worth.
|2.24.06 @ 5:27PM|#
PR. there was no 911-related reason to attack Iraq. hitting
Afghanistan made them look like they had a real plan.
But if they made up the whole thing, they could have invented an
Iraqi-based reason. That's my point.
|2.24.06 @ 5:28PM|#
crimethink-
A certain lawyer opined that, had America's tort lawyers not been
involved, gun manufacturers would make guns that routinely fire
when bumped.
Timothy-
Even if you shoot them before they shoot you, their gun could still
go off and hit you. Don't mess with them!
|2.24.06 @ 5:29PM|#
Jennifer,
Not that I agree with r0ver's unfalsifiable theory, but it would be
a lot harder to explain how Iraqi and/or Afghani nationals managed
to get into the US in the first place.
|2.24.06 @ 5:31PM|#
Jen, please see the comments from mr. x - which you haven't
responded to - thanks
also, sorry about my troll comment - it was uncalled for...
|2.24.06 @ 5:31PM|#
thoreau,
Ohhhh.... But doesn't soaking the ammo in corn syrup solve that
problem... ;-)
|2.24.06 @ 5:33PM|#
The War on Terror has been a boon for government power,
military budgets, and for corporations with government
connections.
Agree, but I think it's them making the most of a situation, not
causing the situation.
Not that I agree with r0ver's unfalsifiable theory, but it
would be a lot harder to explain how Iraqi and/or Afghani nationals
managed to get into the US in the first place.
Well, if you buy into the conspiracy idea, inventing secret Iraqi
or Afghani people-smuggling operations would give you even MORE
excuses to take away civil liberties, I'd think.
Timothy|2.24.06 @ 5:53PM|#
Thoreau: But I'm saying their guns will probably go off and shoot them before they get out of their silent black helicopters.
|2.24.06 @ 6:03PM|#
Good point, Timothy.
Of course, who knows what other resources the secret designers of
the secret designs have at their disposal?
It takes a brave man to stand up to this conspiracy. And to not
only stand up to this conspiracy, but also generously donate his
services in designing science curricula? That's a true
humanitarian!
|2.24.06 @ 6:54PM|#
Jen, please see the comments from mr. x - which you haven't
responded to - thanks
You mean his comments like, the US is better off without Hussein,
except for those US citizens who "received financial and logistical
support from the Baathists"?
Uh-huh. Already responded.
|2.24.06 @ 7:06PM|#
Jennifer,
Also, please respond to Gary Gunnels' question from that one thread
in 2004. You know, the one about eminent domain.
|2.24.06 @ 7:13PM|#
Except for the part where the troops don't dare to venture
because they keep getting killed. Just how much influence do we
have over there, anyway? Shit keeps blowing up. Infrastructure
keeps getting attacked. Soldiers keep dying. And we aren't any
closer to a sane and stable Iraq now than we were two years
ago.
I'm sure that's a response you can back up. Do you really think the
situation is the same as it was two years ago?
|2.24.06 @ 7:20PM|#
crime,
that was funny... but there's a difference between asking someone
to explain their comments from just a few hours ago, or is that out
of bounds here? I just disagree with Jen's comments and think that
they are based on emotion rather than fact... why, she's
thinking... um.... er... just like a woman...
|2.24.06 @ 7:28PM|#
But is there anyone in the country who wouldn't be delighted
to learn that the forces behind 9/11 are based in Washington, D.C.?
That the enemy is not some exotic conspiracy of mysteriously
motivated foreigners who speak impenetrable languages and fade
easily into an alien landscape, but a familiar group of Republicans
with Middle American accents who would be ousted the moment their
cabal came to light?
I would think that it would really, deeply alarming if we had a
political culture where an administration could take office and go
about planning and executing 9/11 in its first year without anybody
but crackpots being the wiser. On the other hand, I'd been
expecting some form of major terrorist attack on American
soil for years.
|2.24.06 @ 7:55PM|#
chooselife,
I don't know if you were around at the time, but Gunnels was
notorious for demanding that people respond to his posts from days
prior. I don't know if there's any relevant netiquette, but it
seems a bit uncooth and attention-whorish to pester someone for not
responding to you. It's better, I think, to let an opponent's
silence speak for itself in the minds of the forum's readers.
|2.24.06 @ 8:00PM|#
This administration has already proven it is more than willing to throw thousands of souls into the meat grinder to further it's own economic and political interests; However, I find it hard to beleive all the high-budget, high-profile bumbling done by the Feds is a ruse for the real work of government, destroying it's own cities.
|2.24.06 @ 8:17PM|#
I'm sure that's a response you can back up. Do you really
think the situation is the same as it was two years ago?
You actually need me to back up my comment "shit keeps blowing up,
infrastructure keeps getting attacked, and soldiers keep dying"?
Have you read any news sites--any news at ALL--in the past two
years?
Hell, in the past WEEK?
|2.24.06 @ 10:20PM|#
I see iraq is a quagmire. I recently read michael totten's blog along w/ michael yon's. Then I talked to Nigel,now I'm really confused- is it feet or inches? Whose metrics we usin? I'm a little unedumecated, sorry, I'm from Boston.[ not a big college town]
|2.25.06 @ 4:40PM|#
all in all, what I think is that probably the government
didn't plan the attacks, but knew about them, didn't stop them, and
put a plan in place to milk the aftershocks for all they were
worth.
Comment by: r0ver at February 24, 2006 05:24 PM
This is a comforting thought by itself - instead of reality where
it's possible for a small goup of trained and highly motivation
individuals can do this in obscurity - we invent the fantasy where,
at the very least, we might not have had a hand in the
plot, but we certainly knew about it.
|2.25.06 @ 5:23PM|#
I'm sure that's a response you can back up. Do you really
think the situation is the same as it was two years ago?
Nope. It's worse.
Two years ago they were blowing up shit in the Green Zone (as in,
anti-America ops).
Now they're blowing up their own mosques and shrines
(anti-different-religion-next-door-neighbor ops).
Hell, they're not even united against us anymore.
Ain't nobody fixing that problem the easy way, jack...
|2.28.06 @ 3:06PM|#
It's all a lie!
Jet fuel doesn't produce enough energy to melt steel!
Of course, we've heard that for a thousand years, blacksmiths have
worked steel, and they used charcoal, which produces less energy
than jet fuel.
Obviously that must be a lie, too. The last 1000 years of
metallurgical history didn't really happen, it was all invented by
Karl Rove. And since it was steel- supposedly worked in the feeble
heat of charcoal, hah, give me a break, that let the Spanish
conquer South America, that never really happened either. Orbital
Mind Control Lasers make us beleive this stuff. I'd wear a tinfoil
hat, but... do you know how much energy you need to work
Aluminum?
Ben
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245