Friday, September 5, 2008

9/11 Conspiracy theories

Well, there you go, Lefty. You have presented one of the more puerile Conspiracy theories being kicked around today, and indicated you believed it in the process. You have to ignore a lot of history to do that, but Conspiracy theorists have never balked at ignoring history. Most of us know, however, that the Islamists declared war upon the U.S. quite a long time before 9/11. It was just that we weren’t paying attention. We treated their war as criminal pin pricks. The great blind Ahmed despite all his heroic warlike efforts was locked up as a common criminal. The effect of 9/11 was that it finally got our attention. You have to ignore all those attacks prior to 9/11 to do your Conspiracy Theory and come out some place else. You have to ignore the avowed intentions of the Islamists who declared war upon us long before 9/11. All of that has to be dismissed. You have to have a tabula rasa on 9/11 for your conspiracy theory, Lefty.

The implication of such conspiracy theories as these is that we who were attacked on 9/11 are to blame in some way. The ways are different but the effect is the same: the Islamists are not to blame even if they are to blame. The fact that Osama bin Laden took credit for 9/11 is ignored. It wasn’t caused by his Islamists. It was caused by 1) the CIA, 2) Israel, 3) the State Department, or 4) confused language that only makes sense if it was Bush himself. Also, despite the fact that Osama and his crew are innocent; those who were killed on 9/11 had it coming. Furthermore 9/11 wasn’t anything very much at all and the evil Bush blew it all out of proportion by using it as an excuse to attack the innocent Taliban and that pillar of Islamic virtue, Saddam Hussein.

Your arguments are used by the enemy, Lefty. Is that a weird coincidence, or do I sense a conspiracy?

Lefty responds: But which conspiracy theory am I to believe Lawrence? Was it the CIA, Israel, the State Department or Bush himself. The point is if all the answers had been answered satisfactorily, if the Bush Administration had not sought to impede the investigative process, then there would have been much less of a furor. Sure there would have been conspiracy theories, but nothing to the extent that exists. Of course, you might blame it on the internet, you might blame it on free speech, or you might just blame it on 'the enemy'.

What does make me laugh is that purely by virtue of raising the subject, I am automatically labeled an enemy. No doubt Goering would have had something to say about that.

Lawrence responds:


I think you mean Goebbels and not Goering.

The thing is, you didn’t raise the subject. It was raised by Anti-Americans of one kind and another before you. It was raised by the Militant Islamists. You are repeating it not raising it.

You demean your earlier effort as merely “raising the subject,” but you neglected to include it so we could see if those words match what you said. Here let me help you. Here is what you wrote, “. . . is it any wonder that there are conspiracy theories about 9/11 considering the extensive list of weird absences and coincidences involved, let alone the 'opportunities' that it offered. Without 9/11 the Bush Administration wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, it wouldn't have instituted the Patriot Act, it wouldn't have been able to increase the Defense Budget to the extent it has. And without 9/11 we wouldn't have experienced the growing anti-European agenda, the growing propaganda campaign against Islam (as opposed to the terrorists), arguably, we wouldn't see the clamor for restricting illegal immigration. In short, 9/11 has enabled the Bush administration to advance its own agenda to a degree that wouldn't have been possible without it.”

Lefty, would you repeat that theory if you didn’t think it plausible? I think it absurd and so would never repeat it unless I prefaced it with something like, “as an example of some of the most hateful unbelievable nonsense being propagated by the Islamists and their Leftists Fellow travelers, they are asking, "is it any wonder . . . “ But you didn’t feel a need to distance yourself from it. Only when I point that out do you lightly declare, “I only raised the subject.”

Goebbels is the one who said if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. The Islamists and their Leftists are doing that. Are you with the Islamists or are you merely a dupe? I only raise that question.

What they are saying draws attention away from what they are doing, blowing things up, killing people, advocating a medieval solution to modernity, attempting to move the world backward in time, threatening, beheading and a host of things not mentioned by these Islamists and Leftists.

Is it any wonder I suspect certain people of being in bed with the enemy when they speak as though they dressed in the same closet?

But perhaps you didn’t know you were repeating the propaganda of the Islamists. Consider your statements:

1a) “Without 9/11 the Bush Administration wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Now consider some equivalent statements:

1b) “Without her having been raped Sarah wouldn’t have had her rapists arrested.”

1c) If officer Collins hadn’t been shot, he wouldn’t have returned fire and killed his assailants.

You say,

2a) “Without 9/11 . . the Bush Administration wouldn’t have . . . instituted the Patriot Act.”

Now consider some equivalent statements:

2b) After she was raped, she had her locks changed, got a new phone number and insisted that the hotel clerk know the identity of anyone heading up stairs toward her room.

2c) Sheriff Dillon knew they were intending to rob another bank. Shoot, everyone knew it. The Judge gave permission to spy on them. “I’ve got money in that bank, Sheriff,” he said. “If they get my money, you’re in big trouble.”

“Growing anti-European Agenda,” Lefty ?????? You do have trouble getting things in the right order, don’t you? The Islamists bombed us and then we attacked them. Europe hated us and then we mistrusted them. Read Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel. One of the points he makes in the book is that Europe has learned nothing about America from 1971 when Revel wrote Without Marx or Jesus until he wrote Anti-Americanism in 2003. Their hatred is unabated and irrational. It smacks of resentment. They too twist things. We saved them during two of their massive wars in the 20th century. We rescued them with our Marshall Plan. We kept them safe from Communist Russia. We shielded them with our military; so what’s not to hate?

Don’t think they started hating us because of Bush. They’ve been hating us right along. What was new is that once we had our own security to worry about, their anti-Americanism got in our way; so we chose to ignore them. That’s our anti-European Agenda. But notice the sharp about face going on now -- now that the Anti-American Europeans have discovered a resurgent Russia on their borders? I'm just raising this question.

“the growing propaganda campaign against Islam (as opposed to the terrorists)” Is that what you think it is? Well that’s not what it is. It is recognition that it is extremely hard to tell where the Islamists leave off and the normal Muslims begin because they sound so much alike. Have I started a propaganda campaign by my search for Moderate Muslims? I have been searching and the only ones I’ve found have been in Europe, America or some other non-Middle-Eastern safe place. So in the Middle East the moderates (assuming they exist) either agree with the Islamists, 2) are too intimidated to speak out, or 3) don’t care. Let me hear some Moderate Muslims speaking from the Middle East so I can tell. In the meantime I continue to doubt their existence.

You describe “the clamor for restricting illegal immigration.” ???

A) “Restricting illegal immigration.”

Consider some equivalent statements:

B) “Restricting illegal rape.”

C) “Restricting illegal robbery.”

D) “Restricting illegal anything.”

There is nothing wrong with restricting anything that is illegal. But there is something wrong with permitting something that is illegal. And there is something terribly wrong with your segment of society assuming that we ought not to restrict something that is illegal. If we shouldn’t restrict it we shouldn't make it illegal. Illegality is by definition a restriction.

Lawrence Helm

No comments: