|
Edited on Sun Apr-11-04 11:42 AM by Selwynn
If its so easy, then please, present proof.
But of course its not.
Proof is not open questions, and there are certainly a lot of those.
Proof is not speculation or inference, though there is certainly a lot of that.
You're right about the persistence of ignorance being a great problem. In this case the persistent ignorance includes a class of people who continuously, deliberately and meticulously think poorly. The poster above made an absolute claim. Not, "I think this might have happened." Not, "maybe." He said, point blank, this is what happened. The evidence is not there to prove that kind of certainty.
People who believe Bush made it happen on purpose have two choices, they can express their opinion in such a way that it can be respected, or they can be ignored.
The way that can be respected is to say, "I believe that the chain of evidence points in the direction of MIHOP, and I want answers to the open questions that remain about 9/11 so that we can know for certain."
The way that should be ignored is "there is zero doubt that MIHOP is right and if you disagree then you're just stupid."
Every time people make an absolute claim, I ask them to support that absolute claim with absolute proof. And every time, they fail to do so. What they provide instead is a long, long list of open questions about 9/11. And then, in typically conspiracy theorist style, say "what didn't this happen? Why wasn't this done? Why were Bin Ladin's family flown out of the country, why didn't fighters intercept the planes, why was there the kind of trading activity on the market there was the day before, etc. etc." And then they act like somehow having unanswered questions IS proof of anything. It is not.
That's what I hate about conspiracy theory: QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. They are questions. The only thing we can conclude from these open questions is that there are open questions that need answers.
It is not ignorant to think critically and logically about the issues. Nor is it ignorant to understand how to differentiate fallacious reasoning from sound reasoning. I believe there was ineptitude before 9/11, and I think the revelations of former Administration officials and the commission to actually produce solid evidence to support that. Beyond that, I believe there was depraved indifference in the administration, that ignored terrorist threat because they didn't care, it was not their priority they had their own projects to worry about, and what's more the idea of a terrorist attack on US soil didn't scare them, in fact they saw it as a good thing long term. I believe there is enough concrete evidence for this to make it difficult to deny. Not "open questions" but actual facts. For example, the administrations on documents, memos, speech's (rice speech) and its own former officials all state clearly that the Administrations priorities were Iraq and Missile Defense, not terrorism. That's a fact. We also know that the PNAC documentation states that a new pearl harbor would be a good thing for America, so we know that those who believed in/wrote such a policy agenda reflect that point of view.
See how everything so far is linked to pretty concrete factual documentation, not to a bunch of open questions.
That's where we are so far in understanding what really happened 9/11. The next stage, is to get answers to the open questions out there having to do with, did the administration interfere in anyway to allow 9/11 to happen? There are a bunch of open questions that need answered there before we can say for sure.
If we find the clear connections, that would lead to the next question set, "did the administration actively plan the attack?"
People need to understand, I am not saying that LIHOP or even MIHOP are untrue. In fact because I believe in the "depraved indifference" answer, the term I coined to describe a weak LIHOP stance which I described above, I already know that the Administration is guilty of allowing 9/11 to happen in their willful indifference and their preoccupation with other priorities while ignoring constant threat information - I know this from clear, hard proof.
All I am saying is that we don't have the same kind of proof for larger claims yet. We should keep seeking. But while we do seek, I react negatively to people who take the attitude of saying "I know for a fact MIHOP happened." No you don't. No one does. Not yet. And if you do, then you should be able to link me to clear, hard data proof that proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. And you can't do that.
If you mean, I feel strongly in my gut that the circumstantial evidence is leading in the direction of MIHOP and we should keep asking questions and not rest until the full truth is known. I couldn't agree more, except of the fact that I personally suspect my weak LIHOP/depraved indifference stance is most correct. However, as there are still many unanswered questions we should continue to PUSH for real concrete answers.
And there's nothing "ignorant" about that. :)
Sel
(edit - to clarify, there are two different threads where I had similar posts, one in which a person said MIHOP was absolute true and anyone who believed otherwise was stupid, and this one where the poster says "of course" the VRWC aided the administration in a LIHOP or MIHOP theory." I asked for hard evidence, since he was so absolutely certian, got told I was "ignorant" for asking, and thus my response.")
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
