On 10/14/05, Dan Scanlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The world bustles with conspiracies from parents hiding Christmas > presents from their kids to Bush Sr. and Gov. Clinton trading arms > for drugs.
in other words, conspiracies are omnipresent? > Calling either act a conspiracy theory doesn't not address > the validity of the facts. The facts are not at issue as much as their interpretation. In an earlier message, you wrote that > Issues like this [controversies within the power elite] keep us from seeing their own responsibility for 911 and other chaos that is fostered to keep arms sales up, oil controls in place, plain folks subjugated and progressives sidetracked.< You are -- or seem to be -- asserting that the Bushwa elite fostered chaos in order to "keep arms sales up, oil controls in place, plain folks sidetracked." To me, that's not an accurate interpretation. I don't think the Bushmasters _want_ chaos (in Iraq, New Orleans, etc.) Chaos could threaten their property -- or the legitimacy of their rule. But given the fact that their policies have contributed to that chaos, they try to _exploit_ it in order to keep plain folks side-tracked, arms sales up, etc. And their efforts don't always succeed. > Nor does the existence of plans and strategies that are hidden from > most people mean that elites do not fight amongst themselves, an > assertion I did not write. ... of course you didn't. But the competition amongst elite groups undermine an over-emphasis on a small group of Bushniks manipulating history. I was arguing against the general conception, not against you personally. I always address my posts to all readers, not simply to the person who wrote the previous message in the thread. > ... Deep > Throat's role in Cointelpro and the destruction of citizen groups > like the Black Panthers and disrupting and spying on peace and civil > rights activists were completely ignored. not by me. > This kind of intra-mural > fighting among elites is interesting but does not go to the core of > the problems facing Americans today. It's diversion. To my mind, intramural competition and conflict are central to the way a capitalist economy works. Political controversies within the state are the political reflection of the competition in markets. It's not a diversion, since it's one reason why the capitalist class (and its leaders) don't always get what they want. If they were some sort of monobloc, they would rule the world the way god does in some monotheisms. > The Taliban was a creation of the CIA, funded through the ISI of > Pakistan, also funded and kept alive by the CIA, traceable as far > back as the Carter administration. This is half-true. The Taliban also received a lot of aid from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Wahabbis such as Osama bin Laden, etc. There is also a native Afghan basis: some people, especially males in the countryside, wanted to return to the "good old days" before the era of the battling warlords. The Taliban provided order, which most people see as absolutely necessary to living even a half-way normal life. > Not only is the Bin Laden family > longtime friends and business associates of the Bush family, but his > role in Afghanistan to tumble the Soviet Union's economics is well > documented. These are conspiracies, not theories.... But Osama is the black sheep of the Bin Laden family, no? BTW, I have no doubt that the Bush family allies itself with all sorts of horrible people (following the lead of the grandfather with his friendly relations with the Nazis). But an alliance is not the same thing as a conspiracy. Allying with Nazis, Talibans, bin Ladens, etc. shows a severe moral deficit. But I would guess that the Bushes thought that these alliances were only strategic gambles -- and more importantly, wouldn't lead to the results that they did (the 10+ million innocent that the Nazis killed, 911, etc.) Though the Bushes might share some responsibility for the actions of the Taliban, this doesn't absolve the Taliban. Jim Devine
