david lynch on sept 11, 2001

[shonky]

This is the same CIA that said there were WMD, links to Al-Quaeda, etc. Then yeah, it does seem that their info's a bit shite. US intelligence has been noted for falling short of the mark before - they bombed a medicine factory in Somalia thinking it was making weapons.

If they were working off 25 year old information from an Iraqi fraudster who was facing arrest in Jordan, then it's no wonder is it. I think that the level of tribal conflict that is there now may not have been predictable when looking at life under Saddam, in the same way that it would have been impossible to detect anti-communism under Stalin or anti-izan groups under Hitler. Where all dissent is crushed it makes it very difficult to determine anti-authority feeling.

I mean, who would have thought that the far-right were just waiting to emerge from post-communist europe when anti-communism would be punishable by imprisonment or worse and the people were under heavy-surveillance and an informer culture was rife. Under tyranny it is very difficult to discern the non-party elements of the culture if they are quashed.

Wasn't there also the idea that the US and brits were going to be treated as liberators, that sectarian violence would settle down and they would be living in a stable democracy now. In GW1, they also encouraged an uprising by the Kurds and Marsh arabs so the allies could allow a popular uprising without having to involve their own troops. That knowledge allowed hundreds of thousands to be slaughtered whilst the US and british forces went back to Qatar to do some R&R

The CIA for all its resources is in no way infallible

What potential advantage does civil war have to the occupying forces, apart from making withdrawal more difficult and more likely to kill and maim their own people? If you think it's all about oil or having a strategic base in the middle east then this is a fairly dumb way of going about it.

If the CIA set that up they're not incompetent, they're fucking stupid.

[obiwan]

Oh my god, these online debates are so infuriating. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING THINGS WRONG AND DIRECTLY LYING TO POLITICIANS AND THE REST OF THE NATION. Look what you made me do, I had to write like a grime MC, phew, anyway take your examples of the CIA being "stupid"and "badly informed" are they, or are they just doing what they want, and then giving you false reasons behind their actionswhich they claim they believe but which are actually easily disproven, such as the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that there is a possibility of leaving behind a peaceful democratic Iraq, that they had no knowledge that airliner hijack attacks could and were going to take place on US soil. All of the examples I have mentioned are examples of the CIA or US Government delberately circulating false information (propaganda?) to the media and public, while most people assume that the high levels of government and CIA have the same false, outdated and wildly innacurate sources of information. I don't think they do, what you think Tony Blair used part of a students report to make Iraq seem like a bigger threat than it was, you really think those were his only sources, or were they just the ones he wanted us to see. GOT IT YET???? Well Done.

[shonky]

Clinton wanted that region stabilised knowing that the US is consuming far more oil than it produces (or will be unable to produce with dwindling resources) - this would be impossible under the rule of a dictator with antipathy towards the US. I don't disagree that the majority of reasons for going to war are based around a resource grab. That much seems fairly obvious. Whether the information is poor, misleading or a downright lie that seems to be the ultimate goal.

What I'm saying which you don't seem to appreciate is that the plans for peace and the understanding of the culture seems to be poor and if handled better could have reduced the level of conflict that's there now. I don't see any evidence for a conspiracy there, it's just fact.

What's the point in spending $300 bn dollars in pushing a country into civil war and then tying up your army there for the foreseeable future? Whilst the troops are in Iraq, they're useless at fighting in other regions (no troops to Darfur or Zimbabwe by the looks of it where real humanitarian crises are ongoing). They've also blown most of their post 9/11 support, alienated about a quarter of the world's population and increased their national debt substantially. Oh, and pushed oil prices to ridiculous levels. Even if you think that this was all done on behalf of the oil and arms industry (who have made a tidy sum no doubt), creating a region so violent that you can't remove the resources in a significant fashion hardly seems to be a success does it. Why would something that would hinder the people you think it's trying to help be done deliberately?

Now either there's a hidden agenda in this, which I'd be only too happy to hear, or there's mass incompetence. I know politicians have lied about the premises for war, but do tell us why they would purposefully fuck things up to this degree and to what ends?

GET MEH!!

[masstronaut]

Just goes to show. Evil is dumb.

[masstronaut]

By that I mean that governments acting in what appears to be self-interest without considering how everything inter-relates just ends up backfiring on their stupid asses.

[obiwan]

Knew that'd get your attention Shonkster

1.Perhaps projecting an air of incompetence and ignorance about you leads your enemies to underestimate you making it easier for you to calculate their mistakes and launch a devestating attack. I'm not saying this is definitely what is happening but it remains a fact that when you are dealing with someone in a combat situation, it can help for them to underestimate you (in this case intelligence, no one doubsts US strength).
I think Bush's entire career is based on this strategy, in the US particularily because the voting public has been proven to mistrust those they suspect of being more intelligent than themselves (Slick Willy etc). Even how simple/complicated sounding your name is effects their opinion apparently. The simpler the better. Also, in the rest of the world people are less likely to believe that recent events could have been engineered one by one by a team of people connected to and supervised by Bush if he appears to be so incompetent that he cannot string a sentence together.

2. The ongoing war in the novel 1984 between the three superpowers, served no strategic or tactical purpose, OTHER than its effect on the populace in terms of fear, hatred of outsiders and a kind of patriotism and unity generated by a grim, blitz mentality. Could Iraq and the war on terror in general not be exactly this, a war fought for its effect on the civilian population, rather than any material gain, ideological reasons or otherwise?
This is sourced in fiction, admittedly, but has elements of political theory, and fact in its genesis.

3.Capital can be genrated in many ways that don't meet the eye at first. I don't believe that war costs them money, it does at first of course but the revenue generated by arms companies and Halliburton type companies that supply the troops meets the costs several times over, I believe. How can you seriously believe that an administration such as Bush's is truly interested in bringing peace to this region let alone the world, when their main interests are war and the products of war? I never thought that even revenge for the plane attacks came into this; they had their targets lined up a long time ago, you even cite a reference stating this.
Look put it this way, they LOST Vietnam right? meaning it should have been left a Communist country right? Well how come when I look down at my Nikes, thats where they're made, even when America loses they do it on purpose, and whats more they still win! This is because war these days is not all about crash bang, its about wall street and its about covert transactions and its about false flag terrorist attacts and its about business!

[rickyricardo]

Shonky -- you are my hero.

[pablex]

Ken Loach on 11 september 2001

[rickyricardo]

Also, you should probably realize that for the most part the CIA had it right. Their findings were pretty inconclusive and out of line with what the administration wanted to hear (which is why Cheany was shuttling between Washington and Langely on regular basis, breathing down agents' necks trying to get "the right answer"). I mean, that's the whole reason the Office of Special Plans was set up as an arm of the Defense Department, rather than the CIA.....to generate the intelligence and justifications for war that they weren't getting from the CIA.

[rickyricardo]

Knew that'd get your attention Shonkster
2. The ongoing war in the novel 1984 between the three superpowers, served no strategic or tactical purpose, OTHER than its effect on the populace in terms of fear, hatred of outsiders and a kind of patriotism and unity generated by a grim, blitz mentality. Could Iraq and the war on terror in general not be exactly this, a war fought for its effect on the civilian population, rather than any material gain, ideological reasons or otherwise?
This is sourced in fiction, admittedly, but has elements of political theory, and fact in its genesis.

The war on terror fits your metaphor (in fact all wars "fought" against concepts "The War on Drugs", etc) would fit that metaphor. The war in Iraq not so much.

In "1984" the wars fought were mutually beneficial for the superpowers involved. In fact that it was implied that the wars were choreographed by the superpowers themselves as a way to maintain control in their similar police states.

I don't see any mutual benefit in the Iraq war. If anything I see a mutual loss.

[parson]

its a mutual loss if you think the superpowers represent the people because all the people are losing

america's superpower is being run but the military industrial complex at the moment

they have everything to gain by putting tax payers money in their pockets

[shonky]

its a mutual loss if you think the superpowers represent the people because all the people are losing

america's superpower is being run but the military industrial complex at the moment

they have everything to gain by putting tax payers money in their pockets

Yeah, this has been pretty standard throughout the years. Even with the tax revenue of the states though, this amount of money flooding from the poor to the rich is either going to mean a cut in public services or tax hikes, but with this amount of cash involved I doubt they're going to be able to get away with it for too long (thank fuck Dubya's only got another 2 years). Although it depends if anyone brings it up in the media which seems doubtful if they're mostly affiliated with big money. The biggest recipient of government handouts in the States, and no doubt elsewhere in the world is generally the corporate world ( http://www.anxietyculture.com/stats.htm#corporate ).

The privatising of public services in this country is a pretty good example. Bids are entered for say, building a hospital, an amount of money is loaned at a low interest rate by the government, usually well in excess of the actual costs of construction. The excess is then put away to earn a higher rate of interest than the initial loan, the hospital built, and then money is made from providing the maintenance contract. It's estimated that this works out 20% more expensive than if the government had borrowed the money and built it itself. So a particularly good way of putting tax money back in the hands of wealthy capitalists.

The Conservatives originally came up with this idea as a short-term way to improve the health service without hitting the public pocket too hard and having to increase taxes. They looked into it and then realised that it would work very inefficiently and decided to bin it which is where Labour picked it up and ran with it.

I think if you look at the national debt of the US since Bush came in (might be wrong but I think Clinton had made it a surplus whilst in office), I get the feeling that it's gonna be pretty unsustainable to carry on with this expenditure without more people feeling the pinch.

[fubar]

So what do you believe?

I used to believe that there was something sneaky afoot. Then I looked at who was saying it and realised that in many cases logical thinking had gone out the window. Since then I've been trying to get an informed view on it rather than looking at pieces that fit what I want it to fit

Basically, if you're convinced it was a set-up, you'll look for all the evidence that points to a set-up. You'll also quite likely ignore anything that doesn't fit in with that view which ultimately leads to a biased opinion. If you then multiply that with all the people on the internet who are also doing lazy research and don't check their facts but provide it as gospel and you accept their take, add their discrepancies to your theory, then you end up with a hodge-podge of badly thought out reasoning based on supposition and half-truths.

I'm trying to keep it a bit more Spock and look at information that disagrees with my preconceptions to get a more balanced view.

word to that! I bet the american government are loving this, it makes them seem much more in control over the situation then they probably were. Conspiracy theorists are the governments best friend imo.

[parson]

no its not sustainable for long

they seem literally bent on destroying this country

destroying this planet

5 mins to midnite the experts say

[parson]

the sky

is falling

[shonky]

no its not sustainable for long

they seem literally bent on destroying this country

destroying this planet

5 mins to midnite the experts say

Friend of mine had a theory that the superpowers have been aware that every things past the point of no return already and that's why they're not bothering with the environmental policy and just going for mad resource grabs. Not substantiated in the slightest, but I do get the feeling he might be right

[capsule]

Look put it this way, they LOST Vietnam right? meaning it should have been left a Communist country right? Well how come when I look down at my Nikes, thats where they're made, even when America loses they do it on purpose, and whats more they still win! This is because war these days is not all about crash bang, its about wall street and its about covert transactions and its about false flag terrorist attacts and its about business!

True! Thats why it all happened...

[metalboxproducts]

I don't really see the need for secret societies and conspiracy theories - the big movers and shakers will inevitably act in a way that makes them richer and more powerful when given the opportunity. Look at the multitude of landgrabs, lying to the masses, taxing the poor to give to the rich, etc that have happened throughout human history. Doesn't require wierd rituals, just avarice.

It's far less frequent to find a national leader that actually acts selflessly for the good of the people. How many people on this planet got to be massively rich without being an arsehole somewhere down the line? Unfair business advantage, government assistance and monopolizing are all fairly regular activities. Why not just have a look at how big business lends money to developing countries in exchange for privatising it's public services and getting into a lucrative monopoly.

By the way wasn't the Illuminati thing a series of parody books based on conspiracy theories that a lot of people took literally. Wasn't Robert Anton Wilson a paranoid schizophrenic? Isn't numerology chiefly based on finding the numbers that make some sense to an event whilst ignoring those that don't.

I find it difficult to believe that the US government could execute such a high level deceit so effectively without anyone involved (and it would be a great deal of people given the scale of operation that the theorists like to posit) when they've fucked up the war in Iraq and other operations so badly. Hardly shows great finesse does it?

I'd say that it looks more likely that they didn't act on intelligence (you could still argue the deliberate/accidental side I guess) and paid the price, and then used it as a flimsy justification for eventually attacking Iraq, which the US government intended to do since Clinton's time. I'd reckon that it gave them an opportunity to do this, but it may have been more the convenience of events which led to anti-terrorist hysteria and public support for fighting a country which was not an immediate threat with the added hope of getting control of an oil-rich region.

Unless of course they've been fighting Gulf War II (G+W, second letter of the alphabet=B - geez it's uncanny isn't it???) with such outrageous incompetence to make me think they had nothing to do with 9/11

l
The cover up was used to hide the increadabe incompitense of both the government and the various agencies involved. That's the scary thing if there is one.

[shonky]

Was listening to Radio 4 this morning and they had Blair talking about the Iraq situation - Blair said that he wasn't responsible for the civil war as this was the fault of terrorists and insurgents.

Humphrys then asked if the reason there were so many terrorists was due to invasion. Blair then changed tack and got back on the old one of saying what life was like under Saddam and mentioned the mass slaughter of the marsh arabs (who were actually killed after the US enticed them to rise up at the end of GW1 and then fucked off leaving them open to being massacred).

Humphrys then asked if he was so concerned about seeing off dictators why he was so busy consorting with so many other tyrants round the world, and he basically excused himself by saying that the UK doesn't live in isolation and sometimes alliances have to be made with dubious groups for the best interests of the country's future.

So that's that all cleared up then

[metalboxproducts]

Was listening to Radio 4 this morning and they had Blair talking about the Iraq situation - Blair said that he wasn't responsible for the civil war as this was the fault of terrorists and insurgents.

Humphrys then asked if the reason there were so many terrorists was due to invasion. Blair then changed tack and got back on the old one of saying what life was like under Saddam and mentioned the mass slaughter of the marsh arabs (who were actually killed after the US enticed them to rise up at the end of GW1 and then fucked off leaving them open to being massacred).

Humphrys then asked if he was so concerned about seeing off dictators why he was so busy consorting with so many other tyrants round the world, and he basically excused himself by saying that the UK doesn't live in isolation and sometimes alliances have to be made with dubious groups for the best interests of the country's future.

So that's that all cleared up then

Never liked him never voted for him. The guy is and has always been shmalts personified. Creepy fucker. Avoiding the question again.
For someone so concerned with his own legacy he has really fucked it up big style. The people that used to have respect for no longer care and the people who disliked him in the first place now think he's an evil Bush minion and have done for about 7 years or so.
The idea of new labour has been so curupted by his own actions it never gonna regain what credibility it once had.