The Nutty Roots
This article on 9-11 Deniers more or less takes the tack that "what can you expect when the administration is so secretive and lies so much", but it does have some good bits:
To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the US government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist.
posted by Pat @ 9:21 AM
24 comments
24 Comments:
I'm going to have to go with the man on trial.
Thanks Democrat!
It has resemblence with the alleged plan by low-IQ bums to attack the Sears Towers.
How is this even related? Your kin aren't trying to compare the alleged Sear Towers plot with the Reichstag fire.
Good article I suppose, but it leaves out the 'movements' counter-reponse to the Popular Mechanics article. Shame. I thought it was going to be a fair and balanced article, but then it pulls this stunt leaving the PM article as the soul truth. Shame.
Mistakes are made, but never yeah right,if that were the case the odds would dictate would at times fall in favor of the people but we don't see thatbr/>i> because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Check your Republican Membership card at the door please. How elementary of a statement can you make? Apparently the author hasn't studied the origins of the Vietnam war through recently declassified documents.
Democrat said:
Hmm, who should you believe?
Neither of them, although Halder only claimed that Goering had joked about setting the fire, which wouldn't be that unusual since there was a popular rumour at the time that he had a secret passageway from his offices into the Reichstag.
The article's accurate about the general historical view about what happened incidentally - van der Lubbe set a number of fires around the Reichstag until he was arrested by police. The Nazi leaders, after getting over their initial shock, quickly rallied behind the idea of trying to portray it as a wider Communist plot (although most Communists had already repudiated van der Lubbe after an earlier attempt at arson). One of the best accounts I've read by a contemporary is here:
http://www.seftondelmer.co.uk/reichstag-fire.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Maybe dem or swing can help me out with this one. As far as I know only one particular event can happen at any one time. Were not living in a quantum world where 5 different versions of something can happened at the same time. So, if the "truth" about 9/11 is so damn obvious to you guys why the hell can't you get a story together. Only one thing could have happened that day. Here we are 5 years later and still no grand unified theory of 9/11. Wouldn't this lead someone to believe that perhaps the "evidence" and "facts" that you have don't really add up. If you had this information you would not only be able to disprove other theories but provide absolute proof for your theory. 5 years later and no one has done it yet.
Richard said...
Here's your answer about 9/11, and why the story isn't clear:
JFK Assassination
(which is to say that when there are powerful forces as play that don't want the truth to emerge, there are quite a few ways to muddy (and sometimes bloody) the water.
troy seems to have called in as Jeb from KY
Lying_Dylan said...
I see you still find fun in slinging mud.
Big fun for everyone? Isn't everyone a little bit tired of your "erudite" treatments of this serious subject.
I am very pleased to announce that Lyte Tripps "Super Secret" evidence will soon be released!!!
Where this will evidence be posted?
Bg, get off your high horse, everyone's guilty of it, including you.
Yatesey said...
noted.
The big difference is that nobody ever claimed that the Reichstag fire was started with thermite and starwars lasers, or that the guy seen carrying the can of gas and pack of matches was really a hologram.
If your argument would be that questioning the OS upon false or not proper argumentation, you would have a point. However, if your argument would be that 911 truthers should provide absolute proof for a single and only theory, you are dismissing the position 911 truthers are in. Besides, all the evidence has been washed away already.
Position your in?!?!? Your the true patriots right? Were just "shills." If you guys want the truth so bad then maybe it would be in your best interest to, I don't know....
COME UP WITH A DAMN THEORY!!!!
If you ever want the truth to be told you should probably figure out what that "truth" is. How hard is it really? As far as evidence goes, you guys desperatly need absolute proof if you want your movement to continue. Specks in the sky and sulfur at ground zero are NOT examples of absolute proof. There has been more than enough evidence to support the OS, why can't you guys find anything? I'll give you a hint, there is none.
but then it pulls this stunt leaving the PM article as the soul truth.
Probably because it was. Well "sole" was the word you were looking for. And there's nothing but the "sole truth". There aren't multiple truths.
JFK Assassination
What does a murder by a lone crazy have to do with 9/11?
This article actually gives no corner to the truthers. It does continue a tradition on the far left of not wanting to say anything that implies a defense of the Administration, so the truthers get off rather easily. Essentially, “they have no evidence but people are right to fear the worst about this Administration.”
It also basically says conspiracy theories have gained ground as the Bush Administration's support and credibility have declined. There is some truth (no pun intended) to that. It also correctly notes the speed of information in the modern age also give conspiracy theories greater ability to spread.
Bush and Cheney will likely go down as abject failures for getting us into an unnecessary and unwinnable war. The popularity of these stupid theories is, at least in part, another result of their incompetence.
One might wish the twoofers would devote their energies to more worthwhile criticisms of the Administration, but I guess they are free to be idiots.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
However, if your argument would be that 911 truthers should provide absolute proof for a single and only theory, you are dismissing the position 911 truthers are in.
Actualy, one coherent comprehensive theory might work, but the twoofers can't even manage that.
Besides, all the evidence has been washed away already.
Yes, how convenient, just like the dog eating your homework.
Bush and Cheney will likely go down as abject failures for getting us into an unnecessary and unwinnable war.
Depends on who writes the history books. I know most don't want to believe it, but there WILL be large-scale warfare involving multiple western nations against the middle east, and quite possibly involving chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I give it 10-15 years max, although it could be much sooner. Assuming that the western nations come out of it victorious, Bush will either be written about as a visionary who attempted to avert that conflict, or he'll simply be forgotten about. If the Muslims win, he'll be written about as the bastard who dared defy Allah, and brought about the last crusade. Either way I don't much care what they say about him, the only important thing is whether his actions give us a better chance at victory in the long run.
Well, I hope you are wrong about the ultimate clash of civilizations, but I will grant you it is a possibility.
As for Bush, I wanted him to do well. I'm not blinded by hate for him, but I simply can't defend his bad decisions.
Agreed. I thought he did an excellent job in the year after 9/11. Started slipping a bit after that, but I was with him when he decided to go into Iraq. Over the last 2-3 years though, he's managed to alienate pretty much everyone, including some of his strongest supporters. I don't agree with a lot of what he's done recently, and I just don't have the energy to try and defend the guy any more.
Yeah, for the country's sake, I hope his last two years don't prove to be a disaster. About the only thing that makes him look good these days are the twoofers idiotic criticisms. Hey, wait a minute.... Now that sounds like a real conspiracy!
What does the LA Times article have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?
The author appears to be reading things into ISG report that may not be there.
This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.
The use of the phrase "could be" allows him to express his own opinion rather than that of the ISG. This author is apparently ignorant of the fact that most international oil companies are state-owned, not private companies. Even the state-owned ones contract with the big private firms because the latter bring efficiency, expertise and technology to extract and refine the product. The ones that try to limit private involvement tend to have worse output. If they really want to boost Iraqi oil production, they will end up bringing private firms but not necessarily as owners of the product and however much the author may want to see this as "privatization" the text he quotes doesn't actually say that.
However, I actually agree with your larger point although I differ on the reason. Oil is one reason the U.S. has such a high profile in the Middle East. It isn’t the only reason, our slavish loyalty to Israel, fear of terrorism, a sense of noblesse oblige also are reasons, but oil definitely counts. However, it isn’t necessarily the oil industry that makes it count.
The American oil industry doesn’t need the U.S. military to invade countries to get business, they are perfectly happy to deal with anti-American rogue states and have been for decades. Rather the concern is American oil supply would be disrupted by a major conflagration in the Middle East. That would cause energy prices to skyrocket and cause a major economic slowdown. Thus, the thinking goes, if we want to avoid a recession and/or consumers screaming at politicians about high prices, we need the U.S. military to provide stability in the region to take out rogue elements like Saddam. Even if this was a worthy goal (and it isn’t), the Iraq experience proves the U.S. military can’t guarantee stability in the region.
However, the reason for the American presence isn’t evil oil company executives’ fear of state-owned oil industries (the majors were all for easing up sanctions on Iraq in 1990s) but unreasonable expectations by American consumers. If we want to kick the oil habit, higher energy prices are one of the surest way to lower our consumption and encourage consumption of alternative fuels.
If you were one of those blubbering about “unfair energy prices” or “price gouging” in the last year, you are as much to blame for our presence in Iraq as anyone else.
Post a Comment
<< Home