|
PeonForHer -> RE: 9/11: Could the US Government Have Allowed the Attacks? (9/12/2016 2:15:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
Before entertaining this conjecture, I'd need two things:
(a) A compelling reason for why the U.S. would do this.
(b) An plausible explanation of how a notoriously leaky government managed to keep this secret for 15 years.
Re a), I suppose one plausible reason being talked about was the 'ultra-neoconservative' wave: the idea that a big fear was required in order to maintain authority. This sort of view typifies the belief:
" In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror."
In the old days, fear of an external enemy was seen as just the 'reality' and a western society had to accommodate it. Later, though, the idea progressed: fear of that external enemy came to be seen as actually a useful thing. That big fear had been lacking since the break up of the USSR and key figures felt a need for something to replace it. Islamic terrorism looked the next-best option. But something was needed *really* to kick life into that fear ....
Re b)
A little personal anecdote. My bro was on a march against the far right back in the 70's. (There were many of them back then - and feelings would run very strong.) Several of these led to a face-off between marchers and police. At one point, he said he saw a man at the back of a crowd of anti-Right marchers pick up a brick, throw it over the top of those in front of him, and straight at the riot shields of the police. Then, he ran to a police van and jumped into the back of it. My bro's comments were interesting, though. He said, 'I wouldn't have believed it if someone else had told me that story - and I don't expect you to believe it either.'
And he's right: I *do* have trouble believing it. It seems so outlandish - so far out. But I think the truth is that you have two sets of *highly* plausible notions that utterly contradict one another. On the one hand - police just don't do that sort of thing. It's unheard of. It only happens on TV .... But on the other hand, we know that agents provocateurs *have* been used by governments in other countries and/or at other times. And getting one such agent to throw a brick at a group of police is such a simple, cheap and effective way of bringing about a 'useful political result' - 'The police had to charge because they were being attacked; these demonstrators are clearly violent and dangerous radicals; we need the powers to break them up' - etc, etc, etc. The 'accepting' and the 'questioning' in you pulls just about as hard as imaginable against one another.
Still, all that says nothing about the idea of the proposal that some King of Agents Provocateurs can oversee the hijacking of multiple aircraft without info and evidence finding its way out of the secret circle. That is a *lot* less plausible than one bloke chucking a brick at a demonstration.
|
|
|
|
