[Peace-discuss] Re: 9/11 Conspiracy

[C. G. Estabrook]

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to 
worry about answers." — Thomas Pynchon

Of course the truth of an assertion does not depend on the motives of 
those who hold it, but I do think that there's something quite 
comforting about conspiracism.  If our problems stem principally from 
the activities of a little group of evil men (the CIA, the neocons, the 
Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the international bankers, the Jews, 
etc.), then the solution seems clear: find those people and shoot them.

Results of field tests of this theory over the last century or so have 
been indifferent at best, however.  It is far less comforting but 
probably more accurate to assume that the horrors we face are the result 
of what we have done and what we have failed to do politically.  Here 
again it's practically a species of conspiracism to say that it's the 
fault of the Bush administration, and if we can just get a Democrat 
elected president in 2008 (Clinton? Obama?) everything will be OK.

Cockburn, Chomsky and others find the preoccupation with conspiracism 
distracting from political organization against what the Republicans and 
Democrats are doing, and that seems right to me.  You obviously wouldn't 
reject an accurate analysis because the analyst seems to you to have an 
undue "sense of righteousness."  The question is, Is he right?

The shocking new development seems to be that, even though a majority of 
Americans are convinced that the USG is following a wrong policy in the 
Middle East, that policy continues -- the killing for which we're 
responsible continues -- and preparations for an attack on Iran are put 
in place.  We should be talking about what is to be done.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> Cockburn seems as obsessed with conspiracy advocates—if that's what they 
> are—as (he claims the) conspiracists(?) are obsessed with 9/11. Too 
> frequently, he sounds off balance, as in the Counterpunch article. 
> 
> I don't believe that 9/11 was a grand conspiracy (by Americans), but yet 
> I don't believe everything the government revealed (or not) pertaining 
> to that event. There should have been a better investigation, answering 
> more questions, but the commission did not want to overly embarrass or 
> criticize the administration. 
> 
> Finally, conspiracies do happen, and people who are suspicious in this 
> age and nation about what is going on should be respected. What is 
> especially irritating  (to me) about Cockburn, whose articles I often 
> respect,  is his arrogant sense of righteousness. His comments about 
> lack of anti-war activity are dismissible and distasteful. What did he 
> want the anti-war folks to do, take up arms, storm the 
> Bastille/Pentagon? Would he lead the charge?
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Chuck Minne wrote:
> 
>> If you can swallow that, why not go for the whole enchilada here?:
>>  
>> http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html
>>  
>>  
>> I have several copies of
>>  
>> which I will send free to anyone who wants to email me off list.
>>
>>
>> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>/* 
>> wrote:
>>
>>     See Manuel Garcia, Jr., "Dark Fire: The Fall of WTC 7," Counterpunch,
>>     November 28, 2006 .
>>
>>     Chuck Minne wrote:
>>     >
>>     > *Before you call 9/11 conspiracy nuts crazy, explain what
>>     happened to 7
>>     > World Trade Center (WTC7) and how it was accomplished. (Never
>>     heard of
>>     > WTC7 before, have you? – that’s not surprising, it’s the camel
>>     in the
>>     > tent that everybody ignores.)*