I think that anybody would (or should) admit that we cannot know with perfect certainty what happened, say, when Osama bin Laden died . The information we have is very limited. As I see it we have a few options: you could accept the official story in its entirety, you could accept that there is a government cover-up, you could accept some sort of mix of the two, or you could choose to withhold your opinion altogether.
The last option is becoming more and more tempting to me. Let future historians argue about it. In 100 years there will be more information, and it helps to have some distance from the events. Still, I often cannot help but form an opinion. The problem I sometimes have with conspiracy theorists is the certainty in their opinion, and then condescending attitude towards people who don't buy it. 'Aw shucks, look at that fool, he doesn't understand that the US government brought down the two towers! Maybe someday he'll get it.'
It also seems to be forgotten sometimes that there is more involved in a conspiracy than just the government, as if "it" were just a couple of guys. Government is massive. And what about all the "extras" in these accounts? What of all the potential witnesses? Or the people hired to do the dirty work? In order for a government to pull off something like 9/11 the sheer number of people involved - people who must be trusted never to say anything - is great. And what of the official story? Shouldn't we expect witnesses to pop up here and there to discredit it if it isn't true? If Osama isn't dead, as some maybe still believe, then wouldn't we simply know about that by now? The questions are endless.
What to believe can get very confusing. I find it very difficult - if not impossible - to believe in huge, elaborate conspiracies. I am also very leery of the 24 hour media circus. The Daily Show does a great job of making them look like the clowns they are:
"It was exclusive because it was completely fucking wrong."
If someone knows of some good alternative news sites, then let me know. Here are a few I found:
http://www.ithp.org/
http://therealnews.com/t2/
https://www.rutherford.org/
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/boston_strong_marching_in_lockstep_with_the_police_state
I also don't want to be lulled into being complacent.
Orwell wrote of the conditioned reflex of "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought . . . and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction." link
I want to remain calm, optimistic and reasonable, but I also don't want to be conditioned in that Orwellian way. It is good to expose yourself to difficult questions and uncomfortable truths. I was reading around some of the above sites and I think that the articles that interest me are not ones that aim to prove a conspiracy, but the ones that ask questions regarding civil rights, or perhaps how government takes advantage of terrible events. What does the lock-down in Boston and the subsequent police invasion portend for the future there? Why wasn't Dzhokhar Tsarnaev read his rights? And so on.
Thoughts?
Conspiracy of the "US brought down the Twin Towers" variety, or some of the Bilderberg Group-type stuff sits very poorly with me. The former, because, as you alluded, the number of people who would need to be inside the tent make the scenario look more like a Philip K Dick novel than a plausible plan. The latter because of the unpleasant odour of inevitability attached to such theories. Oh everything's controlled in advance, blah blah. Unexpected turns *do* occur, in politics as in society. Not every dog stays on its leash.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think about the media/social media whatever in the aftermath of the last week's bombing is that it was a disgrace. A person could tune out of it completely for the entire week, check in on Sunday and be no less informed about what actually occured.
Oh yeah, then I see today a bunch of money was wiped off Wall Street because of a fake tweet that Obama had been injured in an explosion. Why would canny so-called investors take such a serious claim at face value, on the basis of a single tweet??
I'm not sure, to be fair, if the civil liberties fallout of Boston is too terrible just yet. My understanding was that the Boston 'lockdown' was more of a 'can you guys please help us out here and stay home' rather than any kind of enforceable order. Some of the police activity maybe I'm less comfortable with.
Yeah, I think I understand the idea behind the lockdown, but still, there were busloads of police stalking the streets, snipers on rooftops, helicopters flying all around. It IS a disturbing and terrifying sight, and I bet the residents were more frightened of the police at that moment than they were of the boy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&
I understand they were worried he might try and act violently out of desperation, and they wanted to find him as soon as possible, but was it a just reason to invade people's homes and suspend the 4th amendment, however temporarily? What if "lockdowns" like start to become more and more common (something tells me we haven't seen the last)? Are they going do that after other shootings where the suspect is at large in a city? I don't know, it is disturbing to think of it becoming a routine way of handling situations like this.
Oh I agree we haven't seen the last of this sort of thing. Part of it I think is the gradual militarisation of policing, part an opportunity to justify budgets and fancy equipment.
ReplyDeleteSo as a broad trend, no, I don't care for it. The trouble is that old 'those who would give up their liberty for a little security' quote has lost a lot of its resonance. In fact in this era I'd bet dollars to donuts security or perceived safety wins out every time. Liberty is just a word, liberty is 'govt out of my healthcare' signs at a streetcorner rally.