Shane G

Shane G — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Re: ”I also measure my decency against that of those who believed that the CIA was behind the September 11 attack.”>

CIA

You dismiss the notion of CIA involvement entirely, suggesting it would be indecent to consider it, even though whistleblowers from the FBI (Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds) suggest some US intelligence entities have some things to hide.

You seem to be someone who has no idea of who the CIA is–especially not the Clandestine Services (CS) that has had no oversight for decades. You should study history. Google for ”CIA crimes” and you will get 5 million hits.

On Feb 10, 1936, the German Gestapo is placed above the law. Similarly, while CIA agents for decades have been doing various crimes with impunity (such as drug trafficking, as evidenced by the Iran-Contra hearings), Bill Clinton signed into law in December 2000 what was known as Section 308, which officially made CIA agents above the law.

”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887

DECENCY

You appear to be someone who is against having a truly independent investigation.

You do not know absolutely that you are correct. This is an arrogant statement, something a wise person would not say.

Ask yourself: If someone committed a crime against you or your loved ones, would you need absolute scientific ”proof” to answer who? what? where? when? why? and how? before demanding a detective look into the matter?

Answering the questions ”Who had the motive? means? opportunity?” concerning the crime, you can generate a list of possible suspects, and such persons and groups were friends or employers of the detective(s) put on the case, would you demand an investigation independent of these suspects? You are damn right you would.

Only a dishonest person or criminal would not support a truly independent, well-funded investigation with subpoena power so that the would-be whistleblowers (like those at the FBI who claim that the day, the means (planes) and the targets of 9/11 were known beforehand) can tell the world their story for it to be verified.

You should reconsider your definition of decency.

”CONSPIRACY THEORY”

My Rule: Do Not Use the Term ”Conspiracy Theorist”

You are using a loaded, prejudiced term when you use ”conspiracy theory” or ”conspiracy theorist.” It is akin to the sorts of terms that disparage minority groups. (It has not been scientifically shown that people who suspect and inspect a conspiracy are somehow less intelligent than the rest of the population, but this term gets used as such to keep the population from thinking.)

If people want to use prejudiced propaganda-like term against a minority–as do racists, sexists and homophobes–then keep using that term. If they want to think things through and develop a more intelligent society, then they should avoid that term, demanding the same of other and that people drop the attitude of superiority. (Acting like jerks often has the effect of making people who have knowledge to tune out.)

History is full of smaller and larger conspiracies, so ridiculing someone because they are concerned about conspiracies taking place in one’s own time, belies a lack of knowledge of the past.

In any case, the ”conspiracy theory” moniker is meant to stop people from thinking. Resist the urge to ”non-think” that way.

(It’s ridiculous anyway to use that term in relation to 9/11 because everybody agrees more than one person conspired to commit crimes on 9/11.)

Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Rudolf-ogoo

Shane G