Reinvestigating 9/11

[Mr. Tea]

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/cia-coup-college.html

Yeah, because no-one's ever used the fist as a symbol of resistance before...

(Edit: sorry, obvs that was your point - just thought it needed spelling out for lanugo)

 

[baboon2004]

that's a good spot actually - where does the logo originally come from?

ah ok this might be useful http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/Fist.html

 

[craner]

Niaz Naik,

Ok, so this guy reckons he was in a meeting with senior US officials who told him they were about to launch a war in Afghanistan to take control of a yet-to-be-built pipeline, in a campaign launched from Tajikistan and involving Uzbek and Russian troops. And why, exactly, should we believe this one uncorroborated source against the reams of counter-evidence and endless other accounts? And how come the Tajik and Uzbek and Russian parts didn't happen? Plans tweaked? It seems remarkable that only one Pakistani diplomat would've heard about it, especially if the Americans were going around showing off their plans.

Who killed Ahmed Massoud? Why? Do you think he even existed? Or was he a Cold War hoax recycled for the event?

What about these marines?

The consortium and PNAC are not the same thing. It is, however, very likely that two of the most prominent members of the PNAC, Rumsfeld and Cheney, are also members of the consortium.

So, what is the relationship between the Consortium and the PNAC? Or do they just overlap, coincide? Why is it very likely that Rumsfeld and Cheney are part of the Consortium?

 

[baboon2004]

i think the reason this stuff annoys me so much is because it allows the left to be painted broadly as complete wackos, with very little grasp on reality.

obviously there are a lot of questions to be asked about the ways in which neo-imperialism works (that being, largely, the continued extraction of resource value from the developing world, proletarianisation of much of its population etc), and crazy conspiracy theories only make those questions harder to pose realistically.

brilliant book by Carolyn Nordstrom I can recommend btw, called Shadow Economies, which fits that niche exactly.

 

[craner]

Nevertheless, the example and assistance of Otpor, Kmara, Pora et al, on some sections of the Arab revolts and especially on the Greens in Iran should be a source of pride, not suspicion. It is also untrue that the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Carnegie Foundation, the National Democratic Institute and other NGOs "buy" elections and groom CIA recruits; this is the kind if gross propaganda the Kremlin and their favored demagogues in the East and Central Asia have to peddle, as they are directly threatened by the formation and funding of open elections and a democratic opposition in their countries and in their back yards.

This is why they also hate international election monitors, like the European Network of Election Monitoring, and set up their own fake election monitoring organizations, whose task is to counter and discredit the observations of independent monitors.

They are also happy to spend money on their candidates, from Yanukovych to Lukashenko to Aliyev and so on, while heavily criticizing and distorting money paid to develop electoral and democratic institutions, and funds for parties and individuals attempting to oppose entrenched, authoritarian incumbents; without these funds, and without donations from expats and exiles, opposition candidates and activists would have no money to run campaigns even if they were allowed to (look at the state of the opposition in Uzbekistan and Belarus, for example).

To criticize that, is to allow the demagogues and dictators like Karimov and Lukashenko to continue to operate with impunity and in perpetuity; to let them crush internal opposition and control elections without challenge or repercussion.

 

[baboon2004]

The sad thing of course is that, as in Libya (wrt the anti-sub Saharan African racism there), democratic revolts are not to be confused with leftist/humanist revolts. Makes one pretty pessimistic on the state of the human race, but then having lived in the UK over the past year, that damage is already done.

 

[craner]

Why, where were you living before?

democratic revolts are not to be confused with leftist/humanist revolts.

I don't understand what you mean here, or whether it is a point, analysis or objection. Only a leftist revolt against authoritarianism or dictatorship can be legitimate? Only leftist revolts are "humanist"?

 

[craner]

Or are you insinuating far right infiltration? Because this tends to be anti-democratic, whether masquerading as populism or not.

 

[craner]

Or are you just saying that society is full of bad people, whatever the hell is happening? That is probably true enough.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think the idea is that just because a revolt is "popular" and directed against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'right-on' in the sense of being pro-labour, secular, anti-racist and so on. Just look at Iran since '79, right?

What do you make of the reports about black mercenaries employed by Gaddafi, btw? Clearly, even if it is true, it doesn't excuse the random persecution and killing of unfortunate blacks, most of whom are probably just poor migrant workers. And one thing I can't get my head around is that Gaddafi is often portrayed in rebel cartoons and graffiti as a Jew - what the hell's that about? Just standard Arab/Muslim antisemitism, or is there some back story to this?

 

[baboon2004]

Why, where were you living before?

I don't understand what you mean here, or whether it is a point, analysis or objection. Only a leftist revolt against authoritarianism or dictatorship can be legitimate? Only leftist revolts are "humanist"?

Oh, still in London, just that this last eyar has been a crash course in what thatcherism was actually like (i was too yougn to properly remember). nasty.

Well, just that the revolutionaries in this case seem to be fascists too - they may set up some kind of 'democracy' (and parliamentary democracy without any kind of recourse to mid-term referendums on matters of interest to all - it's democracy in name only, as is being shown in the UK right now, obvs), but so what? Doesn't make them ideologically much better than Gaddafi. Time and time again ,historically, the West has lauded such revolutions and they've turned out to be just as fascist in a short time themselves as what they've replaced. Revolution needs to be ideological beyond vague 'democracy' slogans, in order not to devolve into awfulness - I think history bears that out reasonably well.

Also, the Western enthusiasm for Libya is of course not really to do with democracy (ludicrous to assume so), but other matters of political realism. I dont' claim to know the exact situation, but of course oil and the African migrant question are high up on this list. Inexperienced politicians are more malleable than Gaddafi, perhaps? Dunno.

 

[baboon2004]

I think the idea is that just because a revolt is "popular" and directed against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'right-on' in the sense of being socialistic, secular, anti-racist and so on. Just look at Iran since '79, right?

What do you make of the reports about black mercenaries employed by Gaddafi, btw? Clearly, even if it is true, it doesn't excuse the random persecution and killing of unfortunate blacks, most of whom are probably just poor migrant workers. And one thing I can't get my head around is that Gaddafi is often portrayed in rebel cartoons and graffiti as a Jew - what the hell's that about? Just standard Arab/Muslim antisemitism, or is there some back story to this?

totally. The idea that overthrowing a dictator will automatically lead to something better - why would it, without a (forward-thinking) ideological dimension to the revolution? But everyone knows that - making an obvious point, but still one that the mainstream media never bothers to address, probably because ideological revoluiton = Russia 1917 or Cuba 19??.

Well, as you say, the rebels clearly don't care whether the people they are persecuting WERE mercenaries. And well, Gaddafi was just exploiting those massive racial tensions in Africa to shore up his own regime - doesn't make the 'mercenaries' into bad people, just vicitms of poverty in the most part, i'd expect.

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/02/you-wont-believe-this-gadhafis-mother.html - dunno, just googled this randomly. obv the story is he's half-jewish, as to whether it's true....well, doesnt' really matter!

 

[baboon2004]

Or are you insinuating far right infiltration? Because this tends to be anti-democratic, whether masquerading as populism or not.

this is the problem i have with the whole conspiracy theory thing as above. there doesn't NEED to be CIA or far right or whatever infiltration - most people are adept at being immoral cunts (especially where there is the lure of power/fame/riches) without this extra help!

 

[craner]

Well, we may all have crossed wires here -- I know nothing about the Libyan National Transitional Council, or the people acting under its name, or what is even happening in Libya; I've felt like a passive well-wisher during the whole campaign. It was certainly correct to save Bhengazi, but from there it has looked like chaos heading quickly towards civil war. It is also, in terms of real, raw, strategic politics, certainly realpolitik, an expensive sideshow; the real story is going on in Syria, and Iran.

But in these cases, I was really talking about democratic revolution -- that is, of the intentionally non-violent type practised, developed and exported by the three post-Soviet waves of revolt. Some have succeeded, some have not, some have been violent, some have prevented violence. They have had an influence on some factions of the Arab Spring, and certainly on the younger Green activists in Iran. This is not disputed -- it is material for conspiracy theories, notably for far-Left Milosevic fans, but it is not disputed.

But keep in mind that the Otpor/Pora element is only ever one part of a broader coalition, or upsurge, that makes change possible; usually the humorous, theatrical, radical, young and energetic part. The outcome of these democtratic revolts has not been perfect in any case, not in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, or anywhere. But all these countries come from low points, making change possible and usually urgent in the first place. The situation is so dire that liberals, libertarians, nationalists, conservatives and socialists unify against state-authoritarian regimes awash with the money from stolen state revenues, oligarchic gangsterism, and Russian largesse. This is generally regarded as civil society verses dictatorships, though there are specifics and differences in each case, of course.

I have never found it a necessarily complicated choice, or a difficult thing to understand, even once you do get to the complexities; often the more complex the society the greater chance of success, in fact. Libya looks so daunting and chaotic because it is such a vacuum, there was a black hole beneath Gaddafi's state crust. That also happened to Iraq in the 1990s without anybody really understanding that society had been hollowed out from the middle; it was a shock for many policymakers to discover in 2003 that the entire middle class had left the country, been butchered or debauched.

I don't know where I'm going with this now. I'm going to stop before I reach 1000 words and bore you all shitless.

 

[Mr. Tea]

also, what if the conspiracy is itself a conspiracy, designed to deflect conspiracy theorists from the real truth?

i think the reason this stuff annoys me so much is because it allows the left to be painted broadly as complete wackos, with very little grasp on reality.

The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people seriously think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

 

[slowtrain]

The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people serious think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

Well, its generally accepted that the CIA encouraged the cattle mutilation / UFO sightings during the cold war so that when people saw weird shit in the sky they could go: 'don't worry about that nutter, he thinks he saw aliens' when really he saw new experimental aircraft.

Not sure exactly how much of a role governments play in this (as opposed to (i suppose its still conspiratorial) the personal politics of people in media) but people definitely do get distracted / misled about important legislation and the like all the time.

(Tony Blair's infamous "oh thats just a conspiracy" being a prime example)

 

[baboon2004]

But keep in mind that the Otpor/Pora element is only ever one part of a broader coalition, or upsurge, that makes change possible; usually the humorous, theatrical, radical, young and energetic part. The outcome of these democtratic revolts has not been perfect in any case, not in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, or anywhere. But all these countries come from low points, making change possible and usually urgent in the first place. The situation is so dire that liberals, libertarians, nationalists, conservatives and socialists unify against state-authoritarian regimes awash with the money from stolen state revenues, oligarchic gangsterism, and Russian largesse. This is generally regarded as civil society verses dictatorships, though there are specifics and differences in each case, of course.

But does this necessarily lead to a better society - in some of these countries (dont' know enough to say lots) those who are now considered authoritarian were at the inception of their rule considered liberators themselves, or at least much more liberal than they have become.

I guess a stronger civil society may initially prevent the new rulers becoming illiberal too quickly (as you say, this is problematic in Libya), but eventually won't they just destroy/emasculate civil society, precisely because it forces them to share power to a greater extent?

 

[baboon2004]

The same idea occurred to me some time ago, namely that maybe the real conspiracy is that all the more fringe conspiracy theories - alien abduction, the faked moon landing, Queen E-lizard-breath II, Rice Krispies laced with mind-control drugs etc. ad nauseam - have actually been originated by the CIA to distract people from all the terrible things that they and their colleagues in other countries really are doing, and which aren't exactly secret but just aren't known to most people. The fact that the general public on the whole has no idea of the frankly chilling implications of the Digital Economy Act and the shadowy circumstances under which it was drafted and passed, for example, while millions of people serious think the moon landings were faked in a studio, is extremely worrying.

yeah absolutely, I was only being semi-facetious, as there is some truth in this. It happens in a more mundane way in the relentless sanctimony regarding MPs' pay, when this to me was a total non-issue, and symptomatic of a parliamentary/representative democracy gone wrong (ie regular people have no choice/power in decision making whatsoever except every four years between two parties), which is the main problem but isn't sensationalist enough.

Edit: Rice Krispies are laced with mind control drugs, though.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Rice Krispies are bad enough, it's Sugar Puffs that are the real whack shit though. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

Well, its generally accepted that the CIA encouraged the cattle mutilation / UFO sightings during the cold war so that when people saw weird shit in the sky they could go: 'don't worry about that nutter, he thinks he saw aliens' when really he saw new experimental aircraft.

I saw a doc about the mutilations that overlaid a map of where they happen (various hotspots in the rural Midwest, basically) on a map of above-ground nuclear test sites used in the early Cold War. And what do you know, the mutilations were all downwind of the test sites...the conclusion draws itself, really. But yeah, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if speculation about 'aliens' had been encouraged in order to discredit anyone who was seriously interested in investigating the phenomenon.

 

[baboon2004]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...on-strikers-911-conspiracy-tweet-2354748.html