|
BUSH 2112 posted:This and the idea that the government knew about the attacks before they happened ring true to me. I'm not saying that I believe that those conspiracy theories are true, but if any of them are I believe it's those two. The way they used Flight 93 in the media feels exactly the same as the way they used the "heroic rescue" of Jessica Lynch or the story of Pat Tillman. It fits perfectly in with the neo-conservative agenda. It's also more fun in a paranoid spy story type sense. Holographic planes and thermite charges and crisis actors and reptile overlords are, well, frankly they're boring. It's like something my brother would have written at age 15 specifically to annoy his hated English teacher (and intentionally removing all paragraph structure, producing a solid wall of text, merely to make it more unreadable). But a secret government conspiracy run by a few regular humans with all their flaws and failings, that's kinda interesting. With blackmail, and bribes, and secret memos, and some Brutus-like character given twisted information and convinced to do the wrong thing for what he falsely believes to be all the right reasons. Now there's something worth reading about. But some people like outlandish stories with clearly defined good and evil and hate the subtle spy stuff with moral greyness. Maybe that's why some people like stupid conspiracy theories? Everything's so clear cut and shiny and the monsters are reptiles not people. Anyway, the line that "the government knew about the attacks" would reveal a level of naivete about the nature of government in the theorist, even if it was true, because the government isn't some person with a single cohesive mind. What if, say, a disliked field agent is given a dead-end job in some part of the world and discovers the terrorist plot, and files his report, only to have it totally ignored? Does that count as the government knowing? Does it count as suppression of vital information even if the suppression happened because of the personal dislike a bureaucrat had for a spy rather than for a war excuse? Or it could have been "The Boy who Cried Wolf" all over again; an agent with a history of exaggeration finally stumbles onto the plot, only to have his boss laugh at his silly ideas of terrorist plans. The idea that they had some information, but ignored it, then suppressed the knowledge of their ignorance after the fact to save face, is something that rings true, even though it's unlikely. It speaks of incompetence, ethical misconduct, and moral failings, but not vast cartoonishly evil ones, making it seem a lot more plausible due to it not advocating a supreme level of malevolence. Remember rule #1 of bureaucracy, the highest imperative for unelected officials that surpasses both greed and ambition: cover your own rear end. IronClaymore fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Sep 12, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 19:38 |
|