liveonearth (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
liveonearth) wrote2008-09-11 07:25 am
liveonearth) wrote2008-09-11 07:25 am
Entry tags:
Copper Anniversary of 9/11
Today is seven years after the event which has become known simply as 9/11. I can't deny that this event has had an impact in my life. It was when I realized that that those in power are entirely corrupt, and that we the people do not get much that could be considered factual news. I personally was able to avoid seeing television footage of the event for a couple of years afterward. I did not want to know. I tried to avoid it. But eventually it was in front of me, and what I saw caused me to question everything that I had been told, everything that I had read.
This morning I was perusing my friends page and on the libertarian list there is a post questioning if or how many libertarians are "nutjobs" that believe in 9/11 conspiracies. It interests me to what degree any consideration of our government's possible complicity in this violent act qualifies one to be a nutjob in so many eyes. Just the word "conspiracy" evokes an emotional response of hatred. By suggesting that our government might consider killing our citizens for its benefit reaps outrage. Why?
I don't remember the exact quote or origin, but somebody said (and I paraphrase extensively) that new truth is at first taboo, then later hilarious, and finally it becomes widely accepted as common knowledge. I think this is the case. It is too painful for people to think that our democracy has sunk so low, that our government could be so corrupt. But facing the pain, one can see that it is not only possible, but probable.
It is plain enough that the lives of regular citizens, in the form of people desperate enough to join the armed services, are disposable to the government. It is clear that the lives of simple non-military folk in other lands, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq, are worth nothing to the neocons as well. For a regime that does not value life, what do you expect? They can and will do anything in their power to hold onto power, and to increase their wealth. I see no reason for it to be so outrageous to suggest that they might have a hand in the attacks. It benefitted the war hawks directly, just as Pearl Harbour did, by unifying the simpletons of the nation behind a plan to tax and spend on war, to spy on everyone, to torture whoever they please and to deny habeas corpus to prisoners.
Is it such a big leap to imagine them capable of killing citizens to help fund a war?
What is it about the word CONSPIRACY that raises so many hackles?
I am not going to argue here for a conspiracy, as the arguments are well-state elsewhere. If you are open-minded enough to be curious about this possibility, try the links that you find by clicking the 9/11 tag below.
This morning I was perusing my friends page and on the libertarian list there is a post questioning if or how many libertarians are "nutjobs" that believe in 9/11 conspiracies. It interests me to what degree any consideration of our government's possible complicity in this violent act qualifies one to be a nutjob in so many eyes. Just the word "conspiracy" evokes an emotional response of hatred. By suggesting that our government might consider killing our citizens for its benefit reaps outrage. Why?
I don't remember the exact quote or origin, but somebody said (and I paraphrase extensively) that new truth is at first taboo, then later hilarious, and finally it becomes widely accepted as common knowledge. I think this is the case. It is too painful for people to think that our democracy has sunk so low, that our government could be so corrupt. But facing the pain, one can see that it is not only possible, but probable.
It is plain enough that the lives of regular citizens, in the form of people desperate enough to join the armed services, are disposable to the government. It is clear that the lives of simple non-military folk in other lands, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq, are worth nothing to the neocons as well. For a regime that does not value life, what do you expect? They can and will do anything in their power to hold onto power, and to increase their wealth. I see no reason for it to be so outrageous to suggest that they might have a hand in the attacks. It benefitted the war hawks directly, just as Pearl Harbour did, by unifying the simpletons of the nation behind a plan to tax and spend on war, to spy on everyone, to torture whoever they please and to deny habeas corpus to prisoners.
Is it such a big leap to imagine them capable of killing citizens to help fund a war?
What is it about the word CONSPIRACY that raises so many hackles?
I am not going to argue here for a conspiracy, as the arguments are well-state elsewhere. If you are open-minded enough to be curious about this possibility, try the links that you find by clicking the 9/11 tag below.
no subject
The reason I don't believe in this one is the phone calls from flight 93. Some who believe in the conspiracy explain those phone calls by saying that they were made up through voice synthesis, but I've looked into the individual calls and the information they knew and the pet names they used probably could not have been faked. One knew the safe combination that only that person would know. And those phone calls claimed to see terrorists on the plane.
So I'm open to the possibility that some in the US knew about it ahead of time and allowed it, but the theories about the planes being remote controlled and the building being a controlled demolition and all that I don't really buy.
So what I mean is: I certainly do think that governments are capable of harming their own people in order to maintain power or gain more power, all governments do that, it's their job, it's what governments are for. But I think they can do that through much simpler and far less risky means than remote-controlled planes and shooting missiles at themselves and the like.
In other words, if I were a government, and I wanted to gain more power, there are tons of easier and more effective ways to do it than staging something like 9/11, not to mention less risky.
By risky I mean: imagine if they didn't do a perfect job in covering it up and there was some hard, conclusive evidence that removed the doubt in anyone's minds that it was them. I don't mean the soft evidence that 9/11 conspiracy theory videos like Loose Change and the half-dozen other ones I've seen talk about, I mean hard evidence like a phone call or a letter or a memo about it, documentation of some sort -- such documentation is very hard to control, it's easy for it to leak, so it's extremely risky for a government to do something like this.
I think only desperate governments who are losing their grip on power would try such risky things, and the current power structure isn't in a desperate position, they're pretty solid. It's like something Kim Jong Il would try, not something the US government would try.
no subject
no subject
--Patrick Henry, 1775