Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:46:44 -0800
Subject: Re: AUT: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
From: Michael Pugliese <debsian-AT-pacbell.net>


    Chossudovsky is one person that has, over the NATO Kosova/o 
intervention (as pointed out by Stephen Shalom in New Politics, where it 
was pointed out that Chossudovsky had accepted uncritically the work of far 
rightist, John Whitely, of the, "New World Order Intelligence Digest, " if 
memory serves) and 9/11, also accapted, wholesale, even printing in his 
Global Research magazine, the research of Lyndon LaRouche', 'Executive 
Intelligence Review, " and, "the Spotlight, " and, American Free Press, " 
of the neo- fascist, faux "populist" Liberty Lobby of Willis Carto.
One book, being heavily promoted in the Bay Area is, "War On America, " so far 
 the most comprehensive gathering together of all the 9/11 conspiranoia. Last 
 half of the book attempts to prove Mossad did it. Now, not that those creatures 
 haven't committed great crimes (and one must remember, M. Begin of the 
Stern Gang blowing up a hotel killing quite a few after WWII, so provocations 
 are not out of their SOP) but, that and many other strands (like Jared 
Israel not understanding military terminolgy, so he, initially, before 
being corrected by Chip Berlet, wrote that fighter aircraft were not scrambled 
 immediately), only serve to draw people away from a more structural 
understanding, to dwell in the realm of an implicitly moralistic apoliticalicism.
Michael Pugliese



<URL: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/2002/msg01551.html >
Re: Conspiracy Theory
by Chip Berlet
25 May 2002 13:36 UTC < < <
Thread Index
>  > >


Hi,
Here is a challenge.  Go to Ruppert's copvcia.com website and read the
article on pre-9/11 insider trading. Now try to find any evidence that the
speculation in that article has been supported by any hard evidence. Check
to see how many claims have later been refuted or failed to be
substantiated.  I suggest that when you are done, you will find that the
entire article is an example of the difference between conspiracism and
investigative reporting.
As for most of the other claims in the posting below, most of them are
examples of the fallacy of logic that argues that sequence implies
causation.  This would get you an F in logic class.
This is what Matt Lyons and I call the Sucker Punch of conspiracism and
right-wing populist anti-elitism.  The attack on elites is not based on
logic or evidence, and does not inspect systems, structures, or 
institutions
of power--it mostly suggests elites are mean and evil and conspire 
together.
Where does this thinking lead the left? It is a parody of the work of Marx,
Mills, Domhoff, and Sklar who engage in power structure research in
systematic ways.
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psn-owner-AT-csf.colorado.edu [mailto:psn-owner-AT-csf.colorado.edu]On
> Behalf Of nd
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 7:48 AM
> To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK
> Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theory
>
>
> > I'm just not convinced that the US government planned that Sept. 11
> attack.
> > It doesn't make any sense to me, and overdoing the conspiracy thing,
> without
> > having convincing evidence can be a way to undermine a more accurate
> > understanding
>
> Hello, not pretending to convince anyone (for some evidence visit
> www.copvcia.com, especially the chapter on "terrorist insider
> trading"),
> my point is only that in any case 9-11 has been a winning
> lottery ticket for
> current U.S. Administration. That is a matter of fact. Consider its
> situation
> before and after 9-11: in the summer 2001 very scarce and declining
> approvals in the polls,
> the new economy bubble bursting, an imminent  recession and
> no one to blame.
> After 9-11: Dubya poll approvals skyrocketing above 80%;
> enormously greater
> freedom of action both
> in internal and foreign policy (Patrioct act, Fema, military
> balance, star
> wars, "nuclear posture", all the allies locked into the
> "antiterrorist"
> alliance for future missions against the "axis of evil" or
> whatever, etc.
> etc.);
> the opportunity to set up up military bases in a number of
> oil-rich Central
> Asian countries and a government leaded by a former Unocal and Cia
> consultant in
> Afghanistan too, where oil pipes should preferably pass,
> preferably owned by
> some U.S.
> firm. All that would have been not possible without 9-11.
> If it does not makes enough sense, remember the "made in
> U.S.A." Anthrax
> attacks in
> fall 2001, clearly aimed to threat some Democrats and the
> press apart "terrorizing" public opinion, and/or consider Brzezinsky'
> "Great game", and/or look at recent history as other
> suggested, from Pearl
> Harbour to the Tonkin (do not forget "operation Northwoods").
> Historical analogy is the most feeble way to prove anything,
> but is better
> than nothing.
> BTW: With all the respect, to define Dubya an "actor" in this
> context seems
> quite excessive to me; its family connections spanning from
> Cia to energy
> markets
> with its father's "old boys" circle seeming more important.
> This to remark a
> distinction between "official" and
> "unofficial" roles /powers/ gerarchies (supporting an enphasis on the
> latter).
> Best regards
>
> LR
>

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:19:40 -0800, <theredpill-AT-riseup.net> wrote:

> What do folks think about the 9/11 possible conspiracies (i recently 
> asked howard zinn about this at a public lecture and silenced the whole 
> room, receiving a denial of any possible conspiracy from zinn)? I'm more 
> likely to believe the U.S. government was in on the Anthrax attacks than 
> the 9/11 catastrophe... however, i continuously see more and more 
> evidence (Pakistani ISI funded Muhammed Atta, FBI dropped investigations 
> on Islamic militants pre-9/11, the planes themselves weren't shot down, 
> Israeli firms moved out of the wtc prior to 9/11, and most recently 
> (havn't investigated this myself yet) Marvin Bush apparently sold off 
> substantial financial holdings pre-9/11 that he knew would be effected by 
> the catastrophe) that the Bush adm. may have flat out planned these 
> attacks.
> anways, opinions?
> love and rage,
> -Sean
>
> p.s. this article provides links to pretty much all the theories on 9/11 
> i think:
> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/UNQ303A.html
>
>
> --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



-- 
Michael Pugliese

"Without knowing that we knew nothing, we went on talking without listening to 
 each other. Sometimes we flattered and praised each other, understanding that 
 we would be flattered and praised in return. Other times we abused and shouted 
 at each other, as if we were in a madhouse."
-Tolstoy 



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---