Now Ive never been too much of a conspiracy theorist. Im a philosopher so I need proof of things before I come to believe them. Yet, I have to present this theory to you and see what you all think.
There are some, not many, who think Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen because he recognized the threat WWII posed. Some think that Bush knew of 9/11 but allowed it to happen because of what he wanted to do (ie attack iraq and fight a war on terror).
The neo-conservatives
quote: needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.")
The contention is that Bush and the rest of the administration knew of what would happen on 9/11 but let it happen so that they could do what they wanted to do without it taking many years. They say that there is a reason that a report was ready to go on 9/10 about how to fight al-qeada, that Bush was out of Washington for a reason that day, and so on. Of course, with the 9/11 hearings upon us, those same people are now pushing this theory. Why did Condi Rice not want to testify? Furthermore, the PNAC doctrine has played a big part in the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. It is the cause of our attack on Iraq.
Now, Im not sure I buy this theory but what do you think?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Conspiracy Theory was a great movie. Who knew Mel could be so paranoid?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Almost certainly false. Not that that excuses the administration's actions before & afterward.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Anybody is paranoid if you know what button to push. Fun if you know. Even more when it works so well that you spin them up.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Seeing from the website, I wouldn't trust hardly any information from the site without VERY close scrutiny. If you look at some of the articles on the site, nearly all of them are anti-Bush. Even though most of the media is pretty liberal (with the exception of talk radio), this informationclearinghouse.info website has little credibility in my eyes.
I don't buy this theory. In addition, Condaleeza Rice DID testify. All the liberal media said it reinforced what Dick Clark said, and all of the conservative talk radio hosts claimed it was a great victory for the Republicans. So the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, on another note, apostrophes are you friends. They don't like being neglected.
[edit: I type too slow]
[ April 10, 2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Mr.Funny ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"Big meanie Bush allowed thousands of men women and children be crushed, burned, mangled, and vaporized so that he could play with his toys in the sand."
When you boil it down to exactly what the theory is asserting, it doesn't sound like such a sound idea anymore.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Even though most of the media is pretty liberal
Yeah,right. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yeah, it's becoming increasingly clear that the media is quite conservative these days - especially TV and radio.
But seriously, the neo-conservatives intentionally allowing a major attack on America is so far against the very core tenets of their political beliefs that I fail to see how they could possibly do it. Besides, there's no evidence of it.
Sure, 9/11 helped them. That doesn't mean they wanted it.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Well, from my own personal experience, the news shows that I have seen, from every single station, represent the liberal point of view most the time. Maybe it is just that I tend toward the conservative side, but most of the time, on political issues, the media puts a liberal spin on the news. That's just my experience, though.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote:But seriously, the neo-conservatives intentionally allowing a major attack on America is so far against the very core tenets of their political beliefs that I fail to see how they could possibly do it. Besides, there's no evidence of it.
Sure, 9/11 helped them. That doesn't mean they wanted it.
I think there is SOME evidence for this theory but it is all circumstantial. I could see a scenario where some people in the government thought that by allowing 9/11, they would save many more lives.
That being said, I do find it very hard to believe that people would intentionally allow the slaughter of 3000 people. I would need much more proof than the circumstantial evidence we have seen.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
So what exactly are you trying to say? That there's some evidence but you find it hard to believe?
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: So what exactly are you trying to say? That there's some evidence but you find it hard to believe?
I need more than circumstantial evidence. I do think that it there COULD be some merit to it, yet I would need much more evidence to believe it. So yeah, I guess I do find it hard to believe.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
It seems more likely to me that if they knew of the threat they would try to stop it and then proclaim that they kept it from happening in hope of public opinion becoming more positive.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The media is definitely liberal on some issues. I don't think I've ever seen a newscast editorial about violence that didn't throw in an "OMG guns are evil" slant. Then again, the viewpoints that get expressed about corporate influence and international issues (two name two) are freakishly narrow.
Then again, you never know what might be interpreted as "liberal." (even casting aside the bastardization that term has received) For example, a story that mentions in passing how a natural landmark was formed over millions of years might be considered biased by a young-earther.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
On certain issues, like guns, the news is going to be almost necessarily liberal, not because of a bias by the producers, but because anything that makes the news about that issue is going to slant in a certain direction, just by the nature of the issue. For instance, it's tough to make an editorial about gun violence that is pro-gun I think - it's just the nature of gun violence that it is contrary to the conservative view on guns.
The reason the media has become conservative these days, I think, is because conservatives have bought that "liberal media" line so much that they think it gives them a liscense to go out and be blatantly biased. I'm pretty sure this is the premise behind Fox News, at least - as well as a fair number of the political talk shows that air on TV and radio.
[ April 10, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:That being said, I do find it very hard to believe that people would intentionally allow the slaughter of 3000 people.
This is so horrible, it must have been done by the people you hate most. But it's not really done by the people who did it. It's done by the people you want to damage who could, in a perfect world, have allowed it. But in a perfect world, it wouldn't have happened at all.
By the way, are you just joking around about conspiracy theory and being named Jerry? If you're posting on Hatrack you aren't doing a very good job of staking out my apartment. Isn't there something you need to do? Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: By the way, are you just joking around about conspiracy theory and being named Jerry? If you're posting on Hatrack you aren't doing a very good job of staking out my apartment. Isn't there something you need to do?
You know ive never thought of that! I wasnt joking to begin with but you know whats funny? Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)