Subject:
|
Re: Conspiracy theories
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:15:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
307 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I'm dubious at best about the veracity of this particular theory.
>
> So why post the link here?
Because I thought it was an interesting link and that it would spark some
interesting discussion. And it was, and it did.
You all know that I'm mostly in the "can't trust government" camp. And I
have no doubt whatever that (to pick one facet) the CIA has met with some
unsavory characters and funded some bad things in the past. But the US
government actually arranging for the WTC to be destroyed? Airliners shot
down with no traces of wreckage and no eyewitness accounts and no reports of
missing people?? That's a bit much. No conspiracy can be THAT efficient.
I tend to discount vast conspiracy theories as overestimating the enemy.
Government does bad things, in my view, not because it's monolithicly
arrayed against us in an overarching plan, but rather because it tends to
attract power hungry people who aren't necessarily all that good at thinking
through the consequences of their actions and who act in venal and stupid
ways, usurping rights through accretion and incompetence rather than as part
of a master plan (which unfortunately makes them MUCH harder to fight).
So, to pick two examples... The Waco tragedy wasn't a big plot against
messianic christians, it was just an unjustified enforcement action by some
thugs at the BATF which, thanks to stupidity, snowballed from bad to worse
as more and more essentially incompetent decision makers got drawn in. And
the Elian Gonzales incident wasn't a big pro Castro plot, it was just an
outcome of cranking in certain inputs into a big bureacratic machine with
certain rules in place and guess what, you end up with riot gear clad agents
pointing automatic weapons at six year olds.
Now, I picked those two (rather than so many others I could have picked)
because they both had connections to a certain incompetent, venal, and
morally bankrupt official who I hear is now thinking of running for Governor.
But is she machavellian? No way. Not nearly that smart. And THAT's what
makes this corrosion of freedom hard to fight. It's asymmetrical. So MANY
officials with small powers and so MANY usurpations.
Would that it WERE a big plot. Then it would be easier to fight.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) I *might* believe the former, but not the latter as much. I am willing to believe that the U.S. govt. supported a plan that they were not fully aware of ala "The Tailor of Panama." (...) Of course, I agree totally with this part. But what (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Conspiracy theories
|
| (...) So why post the link here? I actually found some of the stuff at the website pretty good. Most of it seems in keeping with what Bill Moyers and the Christic Institute announced on PBS TV about 14 years ago -- stuff I found more than pursuasive (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
