Comments on: Who benefits from the bombings?

Who benefits from the bombings?

jetgrrl — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:00:31 -0800

Who benefits from the bombings? A rather controversial piece. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I thought it would be interesting to throw into the discussion. The author's assertion definitely a possibility (since anything is possible), but I'm leaning towards the 'this is quite a nutter' assessment. Thoughts?
(I did a search and couldn't find a reference to it on this site, maybe for good reason.)

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:09:28 -0800

paranoia, big destroyah.

By: phatboy

phatboy — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:15:32 -0800

I consider myself pretty left leaning. That said, almost everyone on indymedia appears to have shut off their brain in service of a political agenda. IMHO this sort of brainless devotion to political causes is what was truely responsible for what happened on tuesday, not the government or the defense industry. The idiot who wrote this piece asserts that the government was responsible for columbine and the OKC bombing? This is an insulting level of stupidity. I sincearly hope that there are no more than a handfull of people out there that believe this crap. As a bonus, the writer compares the US gov to the NAZIs, instantly invoking Godwin's law. Therefore all further discussion is unnecessary.

By: argybarg

argybarg — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:27:04 -0800

Does the dude from System of a Down know about this?

By: orpheuswish

orpheuswish — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:28:34 -0800

Godwin's law is similar to Stoner's law: when someone mentions the word "society" after you've smoked with peers, you must change the topic. Nonetheless, there are many questions that need to be asked BEFORE changes take place. Right now, many people are telling like minded people that they don't even have the right to ask the questions. When that happens, the paranoia always deepens. Unfortunately, it's too late. The Supreme Court has approved FBI submitted legislation that entitles them to enter any code through the 'back door'. Our rights are already gone. Long live indentured servitude!!!

By: BarneyFifesBullet

BarneyFifesBullet — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:31:53 -0800

Who benefits from the bombings? Gary Condit, no...wait, sharks! CNN, because people starting watching it and Fox has little international presence. Seriously, even though the writer of the article sounds paranoid, he sorta makes a point. The cold war crowd benefits from the WTC because they are already trying to turn this into the Red Scare of the 21st Century. Everything the far right couldn't get through Congress before is on the table now, and they're going to take advantage "big-time". That doesn't mean they had anything to do with it though, just that they are going to use it to their political advantage. Let me guess, pointing this out is a no-no....

By: orpheuswish

orpheuswish — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:35:17 -0800

Here's an interesting story from Wired.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:38:06 -0800

The Supreme Court has approved FBI submitted legislation that entitles them to enter any code through the 'back door'. Do you have a link to support this assertion, orpheus?

By: Postroad

Postroad — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:50:09 -0800

I note in passing that the logo and icon for this crap article show the empire state building--tilting toward the right when in fact it shouldtilt very far left. That said, it is the Empire State building because the Twoers have been blow to all hell...and this jerkoff wants to blame our country. Ok. Easy. Move to fucking Afghanistan.

By: Psychotrance

Psychotrance — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:55:54 -0800

I've got some serious thoughts!!! Regardless of disagreements on American foreign policies, most media outlets seem to have accepted the theory that the horrible events of September 11, 2001 resulted from American foreign policies. The basic premise in this theory is that victims, or enemies, of American foreign policies committed the terrorist attacks on American targets. Let us see if that basic premise withstands the test of reason. Those horrifying acts were committed with a high level of sophistication, in terms of planning, coordination, and accuracy of execution. Such sophistication suggests that those who dreamed up the attacks must have also considered the consequences of their plot. They must have also calculated who would benefit from their actions. Consider the volume of resources, level of training, intelligence gathering capabilities, and the pragmatic cold calculating ruthless minds behind such operation. Then consider whether it is reasonable to accept that the perpetrators did not think of consequences and did not calculate who would benefit from their acts. Something is missing from this picture. The perpetrators of those unspeakable crimes must have intended to benefit from them. They must have calculated the outcome and must have considered the possible reactions of the American public. More importantly, those criminals must have carefully put in place diversion tactics to focus public attention on someone else other than them; and preferably their enemies. All media outlets seem to be focusing their reporting on Arab or Muslim "suspects". No one is examining the possible beneficiaries of those criminal acts. No one is considering the possibility that those horrible crimes were not reactions to American foreign policies, but deliberate acts to firmly position such policies in a certain direction. No one is searching for a party who has the sophistication, the means, the intelligence gathering capabilities, the motivation, the opportunity to benefit, the media manipulation skills, and the burning desire to divert world attention from its own actions against innocent civilians under its occupation. No one is suspecting a party that is eager to obtain a license to oppress the people it occupies as it wishes and with impunity. No one is considering the possible, direct or indirect, involvement of the state of Israel!

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:10:27 -0800

I don't think this guy represents the left any more than Falwell or Coulter represent the right. Come on, if Metafilter has taught us anything, it's that any idiot can use the internet to voice his/her opinion. Ha ha, just kidding. Love ya all.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:21:38 -0800

Um, over on the right-wing boards this kind of paranoid ranting is par for the course (search on "American Reichstag" for endless examples). Generally it's aimed at liberals in government, though I've seen some guy on the newsgroups gathering every scrap of vaguely supporting material to prove his thesis that Flight 93 really, really was shot down. Hey, the GOP needs some black-helicopter gadflies too, it's only fair. Barney's got a good point, though. Gary Condit has to be just about the happiest man in the country and he can't show it ... sweet torture. Doug, of course the difference is that Falwell and Coulter are regularly interviewed on national television and published in major newspapers.

By: bas67

bas67 — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:48:24 -0800

I don't give much credence to the argument that we did it ourselves, but, if I were to be perfectly honest; my own propensity for conspiracy theories sent me in this direction too. The really great thing about that is that because I live in America, I'm allowed to think and say anything I want. Sometimes thinking outside the box is good (free speech, freedom of the press, etc.), sometimes its bad (turning a jet airliner into a bomb). It all depends on who's doing the thinking.

By: tweebiscuit

tweebiscuit — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:13:32 -0800

I loved this response:

You´re an asshole and a motherfucker so big that I would like to see NY under martial law just to see you under arrest and torture by the army. People like you are terrorist's best friends and should be killed without trial, as all these motherfuckers working in indymedia. Fuck you, your time is over, is the end of the game. Next demonstration police will shoot at you with rifles and de people in the street will applaud. The party is over. Better stuck your head under the sand.

The poster's handle -- wait for it -- "RATIONAL."

By: jasonsmall

jasonsmall — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:26:20 -0800

Hmmm...what's the argument here: "The Nazi intelligence apparatus it will also be remembered was eventually absorbed in the US intelligence apparatus became the backbone of the CIA and a major asset in the Cold War (they did have the best intelligence on the Russians after all.) " Oh, yes, totally. I remember -who doesn't? No need for supporting that. Thanks. The author, it seems, leaves out another thing detectives often factor into their considerations: how does the criminal weigh risk? Would you commit armed robbery at 7-11 to get change for a payphone. Unlikely. Would the US government plan and undertake an unspeakable act of terror against its own citizens on its own soil knowing the risks if it were caught? Crazy. Would they strike a blow that would have such an obvious detrimental effect on that holiest of holies, the economy? Contradictory. This article is not only paranoid, but chock full of shoddy logic to boot.

By: jetgrrl

jetgrrl — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:53:48 -0800

An alternative conspiracy theory (perhaps equally unbelievable, but still possible...): small USian terrorist groups planned this, betting on the consequences, betting that people / politicians would have these sorts of reactions, perhaps they have some notion that they can somehow gain some sort of control in their communities as vigilantes... I think I could go on all day. (Note: I'm not USian, so I'm not so clear on what the small terrorist-type groups in the US could be like, I only have my imagination and pictures of Timothy McVeigh to guide me.)

By: bjgeiger

bjgeiger — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 03:09:04 -0800

Nah, it was the people that own the Empire State Building, silly. Just as creditable a conclusion as any other.

By: tolkhan

tolkhan — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:42:41 -0800

i blame the Girl Scouts. they've had their collective hand in things like this for years.