Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 And Beyond

[Bolo Boffin]

An editorial by Stephen R. Shalom & Michael Albert from Znet (June 2, 2002):

(12) What about looking at who benefits to see who must be responsible - doesn't that imply conspiracy?

There is a rule of thumb in mysteries to ask who benefits. This is often useful, but hardly definitive. First of all, we know from mystery writers that there is often more than one suspect with a motive. Does the US government gain from 9-11? Yes. Does Israel? Yes. But what about Russia (which now has a freer hand in Chechnya)? Yes also. How about China? Yes, also, with its free hand in Xinjiang, and the far lower likelihood that the United States will try to isolate it.

If one goes through history and uncritically and mechanically applies the "who benefits?" principle, one finds it a poor guide to understanding. The tragedy of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire (where 146 women died when their employer kept the exit locked to prevent them from taking breaks) was a great boon to the garment workers union -- should we conclude that the union was secretly behind the fire? The bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, helped galvanize public opinion behind civil rights legislation. Was the bombing a plot by civil rights organizers? The Bolshevik revolution was made possible by World War I. Were the Bolsheviks secretly behind the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914? Teddy Roosevelt became president after McKinley's assassination. Was he the secret paymaster behind assassin Leon Czolgosz?

"Who benefits?" has another problem in historical analysis. Sometimes it's quite easy to predict the consequences of an action. Kill your well-insured, wealthy spouse and inherit a lot of money. But what are the consequences in a country teetering on the edge of recession of causing hundreds of billions of dollars of damage? George Bush certainly had the memory of his father's experience, whose war popularity didn't help him win re-election in the face of an economic downturn. And however much one could predict a rallying around the flag in the face of crisis, it is also true that presidents often get blamed for things that go wrong on their watch. As predictable as the wartime bounce in presidential popularity was that the inevitable search for who was responsible would lead many individuals -- an FBI agent here, an FAA bureaucrat there -- to try to cover their own butts by pointing the finger at higher ups. Whether Bush will emerge from all this stronger or weaker is by no means obvious.

Lots of good stuff here.

[SidDithers]

1. Good read...

thanks for posting.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

2. More

bullshit opinion! It's laughable!

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I didn't read the rest, because the authors fail to mention the other basic

questions anyone with any experience at all asks in an investigation. Instead, the authors treats Qui bono as some sort of stand alone issue, instead of in the context of an overall investigation that asks many questions one of which is "who benefits"

It's interesting that of course, contrary to the hypothetical examples offered by the authors, that the right wing were in fact the beneficeries of the 9/11 attacks. They went on to win in the fall of 02, taking back the Senate, and then again in 04. Weapons manufacturors tied into the military industrial complex has been doing booming business and making record profit.

Besides asking who benefits an honest investigator would also ask who has the means to commit the crime and who are the main suspects associates? Where did the money come from that financed the crime? All these questions, if examined by the authors, might be enlightening.

But they never ask the questions. Pity.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I await your paper on the union starting the Triangle fire. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. That's some pretty twisted logic

Doesn't this belong in the I/P forum instead?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Read the article.

You will see it's primarily a treatment of 9/11 conspiracy issues.

Could you do more to demonstrate the "twisted logic" besides your bald statement of such? Please demonstrate how the logic is wrong.

[mirandapriestly]

7. there's a lot more than "who benefits" here

the target IQ for these "opinion" articles must be about 90, I swear!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Would you like to demonstrate that?

What exactly about the article makes you think the target IQ is 90?

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. Yes there is

"who benifits" is just part 12 of a 15 part article. But you have the IQ to see that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. I like this part

Who should investigate 9-11: Congress, an independent panel, or no one? Bush and Cheney have been trying to restrict the investigation. The conspiracy theorists take this as further proof of guilt. But if Bush and Cheney really had just plotted the murders of thousands of people, why would they "ask" Daschle to limit the probes? If he is intransigent, why wouldn't they just arrange for him to have a little "accident," thereby throwing control of the Senate back to the GOP (since South Dakota's Governor, who would appoint a replacement, is a Republican)? Why weren't nosy reporters who've tried to find documents relating to what Bush knew accidentally struck by trucks? Here are some of the most ruthless and devious murderers in history, we are told, and they "blurt out too much" and "ask" their foes not to probe too deeply.

"Im warning you. If you do not keep quiet, I will write you an angry letter!"

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Let's hope they don't break out the comfy cushions.

Then we'd know that something's afoot.

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. Never heard this about the Northwoods document

It should be noted that not all conspiracy theorists have been promoting the Operation Northwoods document. Carol A. Valentine argues that the document is itself a forgery, probably planted by Israeli intelligence, as proven by the fact that it uses the phrase "college students off on a holiday," which, says Valentine, no American would say (http://www.public-action.com/91 1/northwds.html).

The other points about Northwoods I have been making for a while.

So if this document is supposed to show us what U.S. officials are morally capable of, it seems to suggest that they are capable of lying, deceit, conspiring to wage a war of aggression -- but not killing U.S. citizens.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Kent State showed us that. Heck the death penalty shows us that.

Do you believe US officials are "special" in regards to killing their own citizens?

How quaint.

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. Actually neither show that

And you missed the whole point regarding the Northwoods scheme, and just demonstrates that you didn't read it.

BTW WTF is a "US official?"

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Interesting point here

conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was well once and that it can be okay again if only the conspirators can be removed. Conspiracy theories explain ills without forcing us to disavow society's underlying institutions. They allow us to admit horrors and to express our indignation and anger or undertake vendettas, but without rejecting the basic norms of society.

If we just get rid of Bush and the NeoCons the threat of terrorism would just dissapear.

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Here's the KEY point of the article

and amounts to the greatest damage done...Its what us "OCT'ers" as we are dismissively called, are trying to prevent.

(15) How do conspiracy theories lead to harmful political inclinations and allegiances?

Conspiracy theories often lead Leftists to establish connections to or tolerate alliances with right-wing crazies. One of the authors of this article was handed a stack of materials by a Leftist conspiracy enthusiast that included print-outs from Public Action, Inc. (http://www.public-action.com/), which, in addition to its 9-11 conspiracy claims, has links to many Holocaust denial sites. This is regrettably typical.

Conspiracy theories often lead to the foolish glorification of people who were supposedly not in on the conspiracy, but whom Leftists ought not be glorifying. Thus, John F. Kennedy has become something of a hero to JFK-assassination conspiracy theorists on the (probably false) grounds that he was going to get us out of Vietnam, a claim needed by them to provide rationales for various of their hypotheses, and so asserted no matter how divorced from serious evidence.

Conspiracy theories lead us to counterproductive and wrong priorities. There are many pressing issues for U.S. Leftists today -- preventing war in Iraq, restraining Israeli aggression, fighting the assault on civil liberties, exposing the phony U.S.-Russian nuclear arms deal, and so on. Unfortunately too many Leftists have gotten wrapped up in supporting the Democratic-party-led campaign to investigate what Bush knew and when. Just in the past few weeks, how much energy from people well on the Left has gone to the Bush question, with no credible gains, and away from directions where our energies are sorely needed? Leftists have gone from planning teach-ins on the Mideast to planning gatherings to talk about the detailed claims of who knew what when. (In fact, if we were to apply the "who benefits?" principle, we might ask whether conspiracy theorizing itself is a plot by the CIA to distract us all from the struggle against globalization? Imagine debating that conspiracy theory, hour after hour, and then debating about debating about....)

Conspiracy theorists cause the Left not to be taken seriously. Much of the public finds conspiracy theories loony. This is true of course, about lots of Left ideas, but (a) most Left ideas are true, unlike a lot of the conspiracy theories, and (b) most Leftists take their Left politics seriously. But on a certain level, many conspiracy theorists give the impression that they are playing games. Do they really believe what they write? If we thought the government was run by out-of-control murderers with immense power who would stop at nothing to get their way, would we be hanging around writing articles? Or would we be underground? Which is the appropriate response if one expects an imminent fascist takeover?
Conspiracy theorist Michael Ruppert reports that his conspiracy web site has been hacked a number of times and he suggests that this is the work of those who want to shut him up. But he promises to make his site ever more hack-proof. Can he really believe that the CIA is attacking his site? If so, is it credible that his technical fix is going to stump the most well-paid and technologically-sophisticated intelligence service in the world that has just wiped out thousands of Americans and is being exposed by Ruppert? Credibility and seriousness are not enhanced by checking the links on Ruppert's site that he specifically recommends as providing "reason and reliable information." In addition to links to right-wing rumor-monger Matt Drudge (Ruppert's "favorite news site on the web"), TWA 800 conspiracy theories, Vincent Foster conspiracy theories, and the like, there is a link to "We the People," a site "dedicated to two of the most pressing issues of our time," CIA complicity in the crack-cocaine epidemic and the murder of Princess Diana in accord with orders from Queen Elizabeth and Bill Clinton. Another Ruppert recommended site is the Conspiracy Theory Research List, which leads us to the Bilderberg conspiracy site which, in a show of even-handedness, presents both sides of the question regarding whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a valid proof of a Zionist conspiracy. Elements of the Left taking Rupert seriously contributes to average folks ignoring not only Rupert, but the Left too.


As bad or even worse than the fact that many find conspiracy theories loony, is that all too many people take conspiracy theories seriously. Not only is it a way to rationalize horrible injustices and suffering without calling basic institutions into account, it is part and parcel of thinking that injustice is an inevitable part of the human equation. Some folks are bad, so we get lots of bad outcomes. We can't do anything beyond having a good district attorney and going on about our business. If everything is under the control of immensely powerful and incredibly evil forces, there is no point in fighting injustice. Left-wing conspiracy theorizing, no less than right wing conspiracy theorizing, when it appeals to the public is worse than when it doesn't.

Finally, conspiracy theories lead to bizarre judgments of who one's enemies are. We're not talking here about Jared Israel's characterizing Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Michael Albert as "accomplices in genocide" (http://www.emperors-clo thes.com/analysis/revenge.htm) because this is not a function of his conspiracy theorizing but of his Milosevic worshipping. But consider some other conspiracy theorists' political judgments. One brands The Progressive, Z Magazine, and The Nation as "supposed leftist media organs" because their writers don't accept the Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theories (http://www.webcom.com/lp ease/media/cockburn.htm). Another charges that "leading progressive/left/liberal thinkers and writers like I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn will only criticize the monied and powerful to the extent that they think it is safe for them to do " as demonstrated by the fact that they do not accept JFK conspiracy theories, making them "no different in principle" from the mainstream news media (http://www.r tis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm). Such confusions don't help the struggle for social justice.