What attitude should radical leftists take towards 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[Barry Lyndon]

This is from a while ago, but this is a debate on Democracy Now! between the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy film 'Loose Change' and two authors from 'Popular Mechanics'. Personally I don't think the conspiracy theorists come out of this debate looking to good, their arguments are full of holes and they behave in a childish manner. But decide for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

[Sosa]

Long ago I used to be into all sorts of conspiracy theories...used to be a fan of Alex Jones....not one of my best years to say the least.

[Soviet dude]

It's generally a good indicator that an average person who is kinda into 9/11 crap will be receptive to radical politics. It shouldn't be nurtured, but it is a good-sign.

Polls indicate most of the planet believes in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy theory, whether it be Bush, Israel, holograms, etc. This is basically evidence of a wide-spread and significant opposition to US imperialism in the world today. I imagine being very hostile to the 9/11 shit would be much harder to do in third-world countries.

In America and the West, it should be ignored by all revolutionaries. Not denounced or supported, which could only serve to turn away some good people in the case of the former, and make you look like a nut in the case of the latter.

That said, 9/11 conspiracies are, of course, bullshit.

[Magón]

I just ignore them, just like every other revolutionary I know or have met, does.

[Weezer]

They don't matter.

[WeAreReborn]

Depends on what type. I believe the US sponsored the terrorists who flew the plane into World Trade but that it is. Any others are ridiculous and just there to get attention.

[The Red Next Door]

I see them as fucking crazy.

[TwoSevensClash]

I don't put up with them it makes us seem crazy and rational people are turned off by all the left wing groups who blame the attacks on the US government.

[tracher999]

Depends on what type. I believe the US sponsored the terrorists who flew the plane into World Trade but that it is. Any others are ridiculous and just there to get attention.

yeah idd they sponsored them

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The conspiracies that conspiracy theorists believe in overwhelmingly tend to be of the wacko jacko type - UFOs, reptilians, mind-control rays and all sorts of weird shit that is completely at variance with reality.

Even the "plausible" ones suffer from a damning lack of evidence in their favour.

Conspiracy theories aren't radicalising, at least not in a leftward direction; their assumptions and axioms are frequently right-wing in nature (global Jewish conspiracies, anyone?).

In fact, I would argue that conspiracy theories, regardless of their political content, are ultimately disempowering - what chance does anyone have against a supernaturally competent cabal seemingly capable of covering its tracks so well that reasoned investigation cannot uncover them?

In real terms, conspiracy theories serve a similar psychological purpose to religion; a mental security blanket, an ideological thumb to suck, a subcultural skirt to hold. Conspiracy theories are a post hoc explanation of why the world isn't as it should be according to the believer.

[Manic Impressive]

The 9/11 conspiracy theories seem to be based on little substantial evidence and should be dismissed. It does show how little trust people have in the state, when I hear that 1/4 people believe this stuff I'm not sure that's accurate but a large group do believe it. Beating down their arguments should come later we should be saying "if you believe the state is capable of these atrocities then why are you not working to bring it down?"

That being said I do find it strange that so many leftists at least on here dismiss the assassinations of JFK and MLK. Which have a huge amount of evidence contrary to the story presented by the state.

Do we dismiss all conspiracy theories because a large proportion of them are BS? That doesn't seem very scientific to me.

[Martin Blank]

When the issue is brought up around me, I usually say that we won't really know one way or the other until a genuine independent citizen's inquiry into 9/11 -- one that can actually get its hands on the classified documents -- is held. That usually keeps the conversation from getting too weird.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Derisive laughter is the best option when faced with conspiricy theories.

[mikelepore]

There's a funny pattern with conspiracy theories. People who have studied architecture and mechanical engineering say that the World Trade Center collapsed as it would be expected to, while people who haven't say that it didn't. People who have studied physics say that that Apollo was capable of going to the moon, while people who haven't say it wasn't. People who have experience with the capabilities of a former military sharpshooter with a scoped rifle say that Oswald was capable of making the shot, while whose who don't say that he wasn't. The source of the "theories" is people exercising their right as a human beings to express opinions, but doing so in situations where the prerequisite knowledge is specialized.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

There's a funny pattern with conspiracy theories. People who have studied architecture and mechanical engineering say that the World Trade Center collapsed as it would be expected to, while people who haven't say that it didn't. People who have studied physics say that that Apollo was capable of going to the moon, while people who haven't say it wasn't. People who have experience with the capabilities of a former military sharpshooter with a scoped rifle say that Oswald was capable of making the shot, while whose who don't say that he wasn't. The source of the "theories" is people exercising their right as a human beings to express opinions, but doing so in situations where the prerequisite knowledge is specialized.

Reptilian NWO lies! Reading a poorly sourced internet article is all you need to comment on such highly specalized matters!

[Widerstand]

Most of these people are far right-wing, i.e. Alex Jones.

"Mainstream news sources have referred to him [Alex Jones] as right-wing,[3][4][5] conservative,[6][7][8][9] and a conspiracy theorist.[10][11][12]
Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger.[13] He has also called himself a paleoconservative.[14] In a promotional biography he is described as an "aggressive constitutionalist".[15][16]"

Paleoconservatives can be superficially confused with leftists because of their anti-Government and anti-Imperialist stances, but they really are much more:

"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-imperialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1]"

(from the respective Wiki articles)

It is as such a fitting anecdote, that the only hardcore conspiracy theorist I knew was questioned by the German "KriPo Sonderkommission: Gefahr von Rechts" ("'Criminal Police' special commission: far right threats") over his Anti-Israel and Anti-Semite remarks in class.

[graymouser]

A conspiratorial worldview does not get you to radical leftism at all. The 9/11 Truthers have been weaseling their way into the anti-war movement (and in many ways this is a sign of the poor health of that movement) and trying to use it as a megaphone to promote their marginal ideas about the Sept. 11 attacks. They also tend to be the people spouting right-libertarian slogans like "End the Fed."

A conspiratorial worldview leans more to the political right, because the upshot is that there is a large hidden group pulling the strings - and that the most important task is to somehow "bring them to light" rather than to organize a fight-back. This leaves people vulnerable to populism and demagogy, both of which are tools that the far right dominates in the imperialist countries. Workers who don't buy the conspiracy theories are dismissed as "sheeple" at best and in on the conspiracy at worst. This doesn't lead to a revolutionary workers' movement in the least.

[Cencus]

9/11 Truthers should be treated for exactly what they are paranoid delusional fuckwits who are only willing to listen to evidence which supports their theory, everything else is "propaganda" or lies.

My best mate of 15 years got into all the whole conspiracy thing big time. One day we were down the pub having an afternoon beer as you do and he came out with "it's the Jews that control the American media" I left the my pint and haven't said a word to him since. That was over 5 years ago.

So I'm kinda against conspiracy theorists.

[Vanguard1917]

A conspiratorial worldview leans more to the political right, because the upshot is that there is a large hidden group pulling the strings - and that the most important task is to somehow "bring them to light" rather than to organize a fight-back. This leaves people vulnerable to populism and demagogy, both of which are tools that the far right dominates in the imperialist countries. Workers who don't buy the conspiracy theories are dismissed as "sheeple" at best and in on the conspiracy at worst. This doesn't lead to a revolutionary workers' movement in the least.

Well put. There's no scope for changing things if society is controlled by some all-powerful God-like entity.

[Manic Impressive]

There's a funny pattern with conspiracy theories. People who have studied architecture and mechanical engineering say that the World Trade Center collapsed as it would be expected to, while people who haven't say that it didn't. People who have studied physics say that that Apollo was capable of going to the moon, while people who haven't say it wasn't. People who have experience with the capabilities of a former military sharpshooter with a scoped rifle say that Oswald was capable of making the shot, while whose who don't say that he wasn't. The source of the "theories" is people exercising their right as a human beings to express opinions, but doing so in situations where the prerequisite knowledge is specialized.

I agree with everything you say except Oswald was not a sharpshooter and his military record shows that he was actually an atrocious shot and the rifle did not have it's sights set right. I won't go into all the evidence but I find it kind of funny that leftists are so willing to believe everything that comes from the state. I'm not saying he was assassinated by the CIA or the Mafia or Space Aliens just that the whole truth has not come out and has in fact been covered up.

[REDSOX]

The 9/11 cult movement as i call them have not put forward any concrete evidence that suggests that 9/11 was an inside job. The facts are that bin laden and al qaeda carried it out and from their point of view(not mine) it was a brilliantly carried out operation.

[Peace on Earth]

I'm a little dismayed with the attitude toward conspiracy theories here. It's childish and ridiculous to pretend all people who believe in some type of conspiracy theory automatically subscribe to a version of "aliens on earth, the jews did it, or jewish nazi aliens did it." That's not true.

I don't think the government narrative is true. Why should I? The government's track record with the truth isn't even close to decent. There are holes in every single one of the official stories they give, be it JFK, RFK, 9/11, etc. If there was nothing to hide, they would allow a free and full investigation and respond to legitimate inquiries. Instead, there are shoddy commitees set up that, from the get go, are so foolish in nature that there credibility is shot down.

People on the left need to stop demonizing all conspiracy theory believes are disciples of Alex Jones.

[gorillafuck]

Leftists should treat 9/11 conspiracy theories with disdain. They're endorsed by people who generally are just looking for reasons to hate the US government but ignore the vast amount of very good reasons to hate the US government in favor of whacko theories with no basis in reality.

[RadioRaheem84]

Do not underestimate the lengths people will go through to not admit that the problem is capitalism and imperialism.

These 9/11, NWO, banker conspiracies are the result of right wingers not taking a materialist and systemic look at their system of capitalism. They think that there is no way that capitalism can be at fault therefore the social ills of this world must be due to some nefarious plot by evil men to enslave humanity.

It shows that people are critical thinkers but also stubborn.

Try talking to any conspiracy theorist, agreeing with him for shits and giggles, nodding your head as he tells you his theory and then tell him that it's all because of the system of capitalism, he will get angry and tell you it's not capitalism but the cabal that has diluted capitalism.

These theories stem from anti-semitic groups in the early 20s and later on in the 50s with the John Birch Society and other right wing groups.

Banker is code for "Jew".

[L.A.P.]

They really oversimplify the many complex reasons to why the events leading up to 9/11 happened. I view conspiracy theorist as pseudo-intellectuals who use conspiracy theories to make themselves feel smart.

[Reznov]

They don't matter.

Sure they don't.

But when China or Iran "commits an act of war" against The United States in the coming years, we'll see what you say.

[Peace on Earth]

I view conspiracy theorist as pseudo-intellectuals who use conspiracy theories to make themselves feel smart.



These theories stem from anti-semitic groups in the early 20s and later on in the 50s with the John Birch Society and other right wing groups.




Leftists should treat 9/11 conspiracy theories with disdain. They're endorsed by people who generally are just looking for reasons to hate the US government but ignore the vast amount of very good reasons to hate the US government in favor of whacko theories with no basis in reality.
Congratulations, each and every one of you, for painting anyone who refuses to believe an imperialist and deceptive government's stories. You decry stereotypes and prejudice, yet you still hold the typical tinfoil-wearing, bunker-building view of conspiracy theorists. Have you ever thought, just for a moment, that the government might not be telling the truth and it wouldn't be a bad idea to find out the truth? But I guess you haven't, because you view capitalism as some machine that works without men, like a computer that has surpassed its masters. Newsflash: capitalism doesn't just happen, or doesn't just expand. Capitalism is a system used by men to increase their power in the world. But you're disdain for anything that doesn't throw the blame simply on the system of capitalism, and instead looks for actual culprits, is a prime example of why little gain is being made on the left. You're attacking a system that can't run itself. You need to go after both the system and the powerful men who make it run as it does.

[Sosa]

It shows that people are critical thinkers but also stubborn.

I would argue that they aren't critical thinkers...on the one hand they won't believe everything the government tells them or the media (which is good) but they'll believe anything that comes out of Alex Jones mouth or any other conspiracy theorists instead of doing their own research of the facts.

[Widerstand]

Congratulations, each and every one of you, for painting anyone who refuses to believe an imperialist and deceptive government's stories. You decry stereotypes and prejudice, yet you still hold the typical tinfoil-wearing, bunker-building view of conspiracy theorists. Have you ever thought, just for a moment, that the government might not be telling the truth and it wouldn't be a bad idea to find out the truth? But I guess you haven't, because you view capitalism as some machine that works without men, like a computer that has surpassed its masters. Newsflash: capitalism doesn't just happen, or doesn't just expand. Capitalism is a system used by men to increase their power in the world. But you're disdain for anything that doesn't throw the blame simply on the system of capitalism, and instead looks for actual culprits, is a prime example of why little gain is being made on the left. You're attacking a system that can't run itself. You need to go after both the system and the powerful men who make it run as it does.

Are you saying that capitalism is a purposefully installed and maintained system, rather than something historically developed? The need to find a conscious, creative force behind history, which is displayed in such reasoning, strikes me as largely religious ersatz.

Also, that the government isn't right doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists are. And pointing out that conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-semitist thought doesn't equate saying that the government is right, either.

[Reznov]

Are you saying that capitalism is a purposefully installed and maintained system, rather than something historically developed? The need to find a conscious, creative force behind history, which is displayed in such reasoning, strikes me as largely religious ersatz.



Both.

[Widerstand]

Both.

True enough. While the forces working behind capitalism's birth, development and maintenance are surely, at least partially, lead by conscious action, the totality of them and the totality of capitalism can not be explained as the doing of a single plan, theory or subject. I find that conspiracy theorists usually try to ignore that, and assume that because conscious action exists and shapes aspects of the system, it must be accountable for the totality.

[Soviet dude]

I agree with Peace on Earth. The majority of people who believe in some form of 9/11 conspiracy theory are not right-wingers of any sort. In fact, most people who doubt the official view that I've ever met are politically conscious black people. I've had more than a few discussions with black people wearing Bob Marley shirts about 9/11, and they are definitely not anti-Semites or "paleo-conservatives" or anything, and they believe the most basic conspiracy theory: that Bush had the towers blown up.

That isn't to say that I haven't met the types of nut-jobs described by people here. I have, and I would agree, most of those types are beyond hope. Basically anyone who has done a significant amount of activism in the 9/11 Truth movement is probably too far gone to be worth the effort into winning them to truly radical politics. The 9/11 Truth movement does promote a type of thinking that doesn't lend itself to organizing to fight capitalism in an effective way, and radicals should not engage the movement as a whole. Graymouser, however, is wrong to suggest the belief that the rulers of our government committing a heinous crime against its own people to start wars in the Middle East for oil doesn't lend itself to radical political views. People who think this are open to more radical critiques of the system, which they won't get in the 9/11 Truth movement. Individual truthers are fair game to be won to radical politics.

[Barry Lyndon]

Alexander Cockburn(a comrade, by all accounts), wrote this essay pretty powerfully debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists, directly tying their prominence with the virtual extinction of Marxist analysis in the mainstream American Left:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html

He points out the irony of how the capitalist class engages in scores of real conspiracies on a regular basis, but the Truthers divert themselves into a wild goose chase.

[Peace on Earth]

I would argue that they aren't critical thinkers...on the one hand they won't believe everything the government tells them or the media (which is good) but they'll believe anything that comes out of Alex Jones mouth or any other conspiracy theorists instead of doing their own research of the facts.
Stereotype? Get your head out of your ass.


Are you saying that capitalism is a purposefully installed and maintained system, rather than something historically developed? The need to find a conscious, creative force behind history, which is displayed in such reasoning, strikes me as largely religious ersatz.
It's a bit of both. It has developed over history through the actions of millions of people, but I can't (and no one should) deny the fact that there are extremely wealthy people who have deeply vested interests in making sure the system stays the way it is, or tilts more in their favor.


Also, that the government isn't right doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists are.
I agree. But your last comment is the problem. Conspiracy theorists aren't united, by any stretch of the mind, in their ideas. The problem, both here and in society, is the assumption that all conspiracy theorists believe in the 101 types of mumbo-jumbo that is trotted out by the media as evidence of all conspiracy theorists being nutjobs. Even if it was found that the Bush administration was responsible for the attack on 9/11, probably 90% of the conspiracy theorists would be wrong, because their ideas were so outlandish. But being a conspiracy theorists doesn't mean believing that the aliens or the jews did it. All it means is recognizing that, due to the holes in the government narrative, there is a likely possibility that another set of events occurred that caused the assassination/attack/etc.

[Sosa]

Stereotype? Get your head out of your ass.

Not a stereotype, just a generalization.

[Peace on Earth]

Not a stereotype, just a generalization.
Based on what? Your experiences? Anecdotal evidence? Either way, it's useless.

[Widerstand]

But being a conspiracy theorists doesn't mean believing that the aliens or the jews did it. All it means is recognizing that, due to the holes in the government narrative, there is a likely possibility that another set of events occurred that caused the assassination/attack/etc.

That's called 'being critical' or 'being skeptical'. I can be critical/skeptical of the government's version without buying into any of the conspiracy theories that float around (and of which none I have heard seems to be plausible).

[Sosa]

Based on what? Your experiences? Anecdotal evidence? Either way, it's useless.

then why respond?

[Peace on Earth]

That's called 'being critical' or 'being skeptical'. I can be critical/skeptical of the government's version without buying into any of the conspiracies that float around (and of which none I have heard seems even almost plausible).
But do you believe what the government said? That Al-Queda operatives hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC, Pentagon, and attempted the White House, all done without the government's knowledge?

[Peace on Earth]

all the above. I use to be one.
So because you used to be an Alex-Jones worshipping fool, everyone who calls themselves a conspiracy theorist is?

[Sosa]

So because you used to be an Alex-Jones worshipping fool, everyone who calls themselves a conspiracy theorist is?

Never worshiped him, but I read a lot of his stuff. Most are

[Peace on Earth]

Never worshiped him, but I read a lot of his stuff. Most are
Based on what evidence? I'm seeing a lot of claims without much to back it up.

[Sosa]

Based on what evidence? I'm seeing a lot of claims without much to back it up.

Based on the majority of those who claim to be conspiracy theorists. Not ALL are Alex Jones disciples, but most do not use their critical thinking skills

[Widerstand]

But do you believe what the government said? That Al-Queda operatives hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC, Pentagon, and attempted the White House, all done without the government's knowledge?

I take everything any government says with a grain of salt, for obvious reasons, but I'm more or less indifferent towards the issue of 9/11. Even if the story we are sold is true, the actions based on it and justified by it are both unacceptable and unjustifiable. For imperialism, 'security' culture and terrorism scare to be wrong, 9/11 doesn't have to be an inside job.

[Soviet dude]

I don't care if you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, that Allah is the one true God and Muhammad his prophet, or that Bush blow up the towers with thermite, as long as you're also down with hating capitalism and imperialism, wanting communism, and wanting to organize with the masses and work in a democratic-centralist organization.

[Psy]

The conspiracies that conspiracy theorists believe in overwhelmingly tend to be of the wacko jacko type - UFOs, reptilians, mind-control rays and all sorts of weird shit that is completely at variance with reality.

Even the "plausible" ones suffer from a damning lack of evidence in their favour.

Conspiracy theories aren't radicalising, at least not in a leftward direction; their assumptions and axioms are frequently right-wing in nature (global Jewish conspiracies, anyone?).

In fact, I would argue that conspiracy theories, regardless of their political content, are ultimately disempowering - what chance does anyone have against a supernaturally competent cabal seemingly capable of covering its tracks so well that reasoned investigation cannot uncover them?

In real terms, conspiracy theories serve a similar psychological purpose to religion; a mental security blanket, an ideological thumb to suck, a subcultural skirt to hold. Conspiracy theories are a post hoc explanation of why the world isn't as it should be according to the believer.

Yet that is if you define a conspiracy as only acompetent cabal and that a semi-competent bureaucracy covering up its incompetence is not a conspiracy. For example the US military covering has a very long history of covering up its failures ie the Sergeant York self-propelled AA Gun had a spectacular failure during a presentation almost killing VIPs due to a conspiracy to hide major design flaws that made the gun worthless yes having the computer think VIPs on the ground were the drone it was suppose to shoot down showed the AA gun was seriously flawed but that doesn't change the fact prior the US pentegon hid these design flaws from not only the public but from the rest of the goverment thus was a conspiracy by the Pentegon to push through known defected weapons into mass production because they had ties with the weapon contractors.

We should not dismiss conspiracies as we know that happen, yet they are conpiracies made by bureaucracies that usally are clumsly exicuted. For example remeber Wako where the offical story from the FBI was the tapes of themal images didn't show muzel flashes from police but fluke optical reflections off reflective surfaces (ie they had really shinny helmets) and experts said the FBI was full of shit as they were themal images measuring heat not light thus the recording showed a sudden flash of heat (not light as themal imaging doesn't work that way) from officers towards the compund (thus the thermal imaging probably picked up hot gasses from firearms escapping from their barrels), guess what that is a conspiracy of the FBI to hide the fact they open fire on the compund.

[Peace on Earth]

Based on the majority of those who claim to be conspiracy theorists. Not ALL are Alex Jones disciples, but most do not use their critical thinking skills
Again, you're making a claim without backing it up. Where are you finding this majority? Interviews, polls, other statistics?

[RadioRaheem84]

What is it about conspiracy theories you find appealing, Peace?

[Pretty Flaco]

most conspiracy theorists are bat shit insane and remind me of the proverbial crazy old man screaming about "the aliens!" and claiming to have been abducted

They draw conclusions without proof and use circular logic

[Barry Lyndon]

There is a huge conspiracy at work. It's called capitalism.

[Widerstand]

use circular logic

How true! :laugh:

"If my conspiracy theory is true, the government must lie.

If the government lies, their evidence must be fabricated.

If their evidence is fabricated, my conspiracy theory must be true."

[L.A.P.]

Congratulations, each and every one of you, for painting anyone who refuses to believe an imperialist and deceptive government's stories. You decry stereotypes and prejudice, yet you still hold the typical tinfoil-wearing, bunker-building view of conspiracy theorists. Have you ever thought, just for a moment, that the government might not be telling the truth and it wouldn't be a bad idea to find out the truth? But I guess you haven't, because you view capitalism as some machine that works without men, like a computer that has surpassed its masters. Newsflash: capitalism doesn't just happen, or doesn't just expand. Capitalism is a system used by men to increase their power in the world. But you're disdain for anything that doesn't throw the blame simply on the system of capitalism, and instead looks for actual culprits, is a prime example of why little gain is being made on the left. You're attacking a system that can't run itself. You need to go after both the system and the powerful men who make it run as it does.

You're right, I should trust the oh so logical arguments of two immature college film students who made Loose Change with the intention of it being a fictional movie originally.:rolleyes:

[L.A.P.]

There is a huge conspiracy at work. It's called capitalism.

By the way, I thought you were leaving RevLeft?

[Peace on Earth]

What is it about conspiracy theories you find appealing, Peace?
I don't find anything about them appealing. They are about as appealing as murder or rape, except with far-reaching consequences.

[Sosa]

Again, you're making a claim without backing it up. Where are you finding this majority? Interviews, polls, other statistics?

1 in 5 americans think that Obama is a Muslim.

This is just from the general population. The majority of conspiracy theorists I have come in contact with are insane. I would honestly say that about 99% of them are, the other 1% are more reasonable.

[Peace on Earth]

1 in 5 americans think that Obama is a Muslim.

This is just from the general population. The majority of conspiracy theorists I have come in contact with are insane. I would honestly say that about 99% of them are, the other 1% are more reasonable.
So you're basing your view of all people who believe in conspiracy theories to be insane? Do you still hold the same view when they are proven to be correct? Such as in instances when it has been proven the government has lied and engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up?

[Sosa]

So you're basing your view of all people who believe in conspiracy theories to be insane? Do you still hold the same view when they are proven to be correct? Such as in instances when it has been proven the government has lied and engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up?

Again I said not ALL, but most. I go by evidence, If I am proven wrong then I change my views according to the evidence. I don't deny the government has lied or covered up documents, information, events, etc.

Right wing nuts are the most overtly conspiracy theory minded.

[Manic Impressive]

"If my conspiracy theory is true, the government must lie.

If the government lies, their evidence must be fabricated.

If their evidence is fabricated, my conspiracy theory must be true."

Funny the arguments being made against conspiracy theories here are exactly the same.

"If that conspiracy theory is bat shit crazy, then they must all be bat shit crazy.

If they're crazy their evidence must be false, all conspiracy theories must be false, the government would never lie"

Personally I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory, although the strangest thing about it is the document that shows the invasion plans for Afghanistan were drawn up on 9/10. But to claim that there are not conspiracies is illogical whether it's a politician meeting a business person at their holiday home to discuss ways to fatten their pockets http://news.scotsman.com/uk/No-favours-for-Russian-tycoon.4631019.jp

Or removing someone who is either threatening to their existence or their profits.

[mikelepore]

The real 9/11 government conspiracy is in the part where the government says "they attacked us because they hate our freedom" rather than tracing the motive to bullyish U.S. foreign policies. But there is no question about what might cause a building to fall down -- after thousands of gallons of jet fuel have been ignited inside of it. There are occasions to find the government lying, but not in the matter of what immediate physical cause weakened the buildings.

[Widerstand]

Funny the arguments being made against conspiracy theories here are exactly the same.

"If that conspiracy theory is bat shit crazy, then they must all be bat shit crazy.

If they're crazy their evidence must be false, all conspiracy theories must be false, the government would never lie"

Yeah, except that no one said "the government would never lie", and no one said that their evidence is false because they are crazy, but rather that they are crazy because they have no evidence / because they refuse to accept all evidence contradicting their claims.

[Sosa]

Yeah, except that no one said "the government would never lie", and no one said that their evidence is false because they are crazy, but rather that they are crazy because they have no evidence / because they refuse to accept all evidence contradicting their claims.

Exactly.

[Psy]

Again I said not ALL, but most. I go by evidence, If I am proven wrong then I change my views according to the evidence. I don't deny the government has lied or covered up documents, information, events, etc.

Right wing nuts are the most overtly conspiracy theory minded.

The problem with right wing conspiracy theories is they tend to try to link the conspiracies together into a grand conspiracy. In reality there is no grand conspiracy, you have organizations conspiring on their own driven by the capitalist/imperialist system.

[Widerstand]

The problem with right wing conspiracy theories is they tend to try to link the conspiracies together into a grand conspiracy. In reality there is no grand conspiracy, you have organizations conspiring on their own driven by the capitalist/imperialist system.

This 'linking together' really creates the most absurdities: When no link can be made from existing theories alone, a 'grander conspiracy' is made up: The Jews did it, the reptilians from another dimension did it, Satan did it, etc.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah, except that no one said "the government would never lie", and no one said that their evidence is false because they are crazy, but rather that they are crazy because they have no evidence / because they refuse to accept all evidence contradicting their claims.

Ok I was being sarcastic with that last comment, but again you are lumping all conspiracy theories together. Looking at the evidence of the kennedy assassination and saying wait this is completely contradictory to what has been said by the government or the media or simply this does not make sense is not the same as believing that we are being controlled by alien lizard creatures. Surely you can see the distinction there?

[Widerstand]

Ok I was being sarcastic with that last comment, but again you are lumping all conspiracy theories together. Looking at the evidence of the kennedy assassination and saying wait this is completely contradictory to what has been said by the government or the media or simply this does not make sense is not the same as believing that we are being controlled by alien lizard creatures. Surely you can see the distinction there?

For the love of whatever god you may or may not believe in...

Being skeptical/critical is an act of disbelief. Now while disbelief is always also belief, a skeptical and critical stance do not demand an alternate explanation. X being false does not demand Y to be true.

Believing in the existence of conspiracies, is not the same as being a conspiracy theorist. If you believe that proven conspiracies were in fact conspired, you are not a conspiracy theorist in the contemporary meaning of the word.

[Summerspeaker]

I'm an agnostic about 9/11. The evidence I've seen doesn't convince that it was an inside job but there's enough there to make me skeptical and curious. It wouldn't surprise me if the official story gets rewritten by historians in fifty years.

[Sosa]

Personally I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory, although the strangest thing about it is the document that shows the invasion plans for Afghanistan were drawn up on 9/10. But to claim that there are not conspiracies is illogical whether it's a politician meeting a business person at their holiday home to discuss ways to fatten their pockets http://news.scotsman.com/uk/No-favours-for-Russian-tycoon.4631019.jp

Or removing someone who is either threatening to their existence or their profits.

Absolutely, I don't deny that. I'm mainly talking about the conspiracy theories that involve all these players conspiring in unison on how to bring about a New World Order, etc.

Which include the 9/11 Conspiracy theories that it was an inside job, the ones who believe that Obama is a radical muslim, birthers, etc.

[Peace on Earth]

Again I said not ALL, but most. I go by evidence, If I am proven wrong then I change my views according to the evidence.
Personal experience is not evidence. Being mugged by several black men does not mean black men are all muggers. You cannot claim that most conspiracy theories are nuts based on your "evidence," as what you have provided here is not evidence. The fact of the matter is, you do not base your opinions on evidence, but instead shoddy generalizations that you refuse to get rid of unless overwhelming evidence is provided to rid you of your bias.

[quote[I don't deny the government has lied or covered up documents, information, events, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Yet anyone who looks at the facts and comes up with an explanation, as a detective would with a crime, is almost certain to be labeled by you as a nutjob or something of the sort.

[Sosa]

Personal experience is not evidence. Being mugged by several black men does not mean black men are all muggers. You cannot claim that most conspiracy theories are nuts based on your "evidence," as what you have provided here is not evidence. The fact of the matter is, you do not base your opinions on evidence, but instead shoddy generalizations that you refuse to get rid of unless overwhelming evidence is provided to rid you of your biasI don't think I ever claimed that it was evidence, and If I did I correct myself.

No I label nutjobs those who see this grand conspiracy worldwide to establish a New World Order and who are certain of their claims despite evidence proving them wrong or not having evidence that supports their theory. What they see is a hole and then come to a conclusion and find evidence to support that conclusion while ignoring any contradicting evidence.

[Sosa]

I admitted to making a generalization. I stand by my statement that most Conspiracy Theorists are nuts. I've been trying to find the study done of conspiracy theories that show they are mostly held disproportionately by hard right-wingers, but I've had no luck, I think it was done quite a while ago.

[Psy]

This 'linking together' really creates the most absurdities: When no link can be made from existing theories alone, a 'grander conspiracy' is made up: The Jews did it, the reptilians from another dimension did it, Satan did it, etc.
Yet this comes from the individualist view of history that is the preferred view of the bourgeoisie. In school we are taught that history are made by "great" leaders, a dilectical view of history is not tought in schools.

Most that try to grasp conspircies are looking for the "great" leaders behind the conspriacy due to their indivudualist outlook as they can't comprehend conspiracies coming from within the logic of bodies presuing their collective self-intrest thus conspriacies being a natural fenomenum of the class hiarchy.

[Widerstand]

Yet this comes from the individualist view of history that is the preferred view of the bourgeoisie. In school we are taught that history are made by "great" leaders, a dilectical view of history is not tought in schools.

Most that try to grasp conspircies are looking for the "great" leaders behind the conspriacy due to their indivudualist outlook as they can't comprehend conspiracies coming from within the logic of bodies presuing their collective self-intrest thus conspriacies being a natural fenomenum of the class hiarchy.

Exactly.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Conspiracy theories are a distracting irrelevancy.

[Peace on Earth]

Conspiracy theories are a distracting irrelevancy.
Finding out the culprits behind major crimes are irrevelent?


Absolutely, I don't deny that. I'm mainly talking about the conspiracy theories that involve all these players conspiring in unison on how to bring about a New World Order, etc.

Which include the 9/11 Conspiracy theories that it was an inside job, the ones who believe that Obama is a radical muslim, birthers, etc.
The 9/11 conspiracy is in no way anywhere close to the NWO theories, or the Obama muslim/birther nonsense. Don't lump them together.

[revolution inaction]

Congratulations, each and every one of you, for painting anyone who refuses to believe an imperialist and deceptive government's stories. You decry stereotypes and prejudice, yet you still hold the typical tinfoil-wearing, bunker-building view of conspiracy theorists. Have you ever thought, just for a moment, that the government might not be telling the truth and it wouldn't be a bad idea to find out the truth? But I guess you haven't, because you view capitalism as some machine that works without men, like a computer that has surpassed its masters. Newsflash: capitalism doesn't just happen, or doesn't just expand. Capitalism is a system used by men to increase their power in the world. But you're disdain for anything that doesn't throw the blame simply on the system of capitalism, and instead looks for actual culprits, is a prime example of why little gain is being made on the left. You're attacking a system that can't run itself. You need to go after both the system and the powerful men who make it run as it does.

dissbeliving everything the government says is no less stupid than believing everything the government says.

[revolution inaction]

But do you believe what the government said? That Al-Queda operatives hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC, Pentagon, and attempted the White House, all done without the government's knowledge?
i don't know that it was al-queda, and the state appears to have had some information that could/should have made them suspices, but appart fro that then, yes thats defiantly what happened, and no one both aquanted with the facts and resonably intelligent believes otherwise.

[gorillafuck]

You decry stereotypes and prejudice, yet you still hold the typical tinfoil-wearing, bunker-building view of conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry, did you just try to compare making a statement about people who hold a certain political belief to racism, homophobia, etc.? That's really, really stupid.

I have gone to movie showings and talks hosted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I have discussed it with people who believe it. The facts aren't on their side, they're wrong.

[Psy]

Finding out the culprits behind major crimes are irrevelent?

The 9/11 conspiracy is in no way anywhere close to the NWO theories, or the Obama muslim/birther nonsense. Don't lump them together.

It is imperialism, there are no real culprits at is the logic of imperialism. The bodies responsible had no concept of what the end results and simply acted towards what they precised what their self-interest was.

[MellowViper]

I think its retarded. Conspiracy theorists are just reactionaries. They understand there's a problem with our system, and saying its a NWO conspiracy headed by our reptillian overlords from the Andromeda galaxy or Jews or the Illuminati just gives them an answer and a common enemy without any real evidence. You can't argue with them either, because when someone commits to that kind of solution to explain their problems with so little proof to back up such a claim, you can't argue with them. Dialectics mean nothing to them. They're irrational to begin with. Radical Wahhabists hijacking plains and crashing them into buildings to intentionally hurt the western economy is a completely legitimate explanation if you understand history in the region. Its not like suicide bombing wasn't already a type of terrorist activity before 9/11. It all adds up. I'd like to hope the left is in common agreement that such ideas are bunk.

[Peace on Earth]

I'm sorry, did you just try to compare making a statement about people who hold a certain political belief to racism, homophobia, etc.? That's really, really stupid.

I have gone to movie showings and talks hosted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I have discussed it with people who believe it. The facts aren't on their side, they're wrong.
Who is "they?" Don't you realize that there is not one unified conspiracy theory? Saying "they're wrong" makes it seem like you can either be pro-conspiracy or anti-conspiracy, and anyone on the other side is a nutcase enemy.

dissbeliving everything the government says is no less stupid than believing everything the government says.
Not at all. I believe what the evidence proves, or at least what it most likely proves. I could care less what the government says; they've lied far too many times before to be considered truthful. Believing a notorious liar every time is far worse than not believing anything he says.

[graymouser]

Finding out the culprits behind major crimes are irrevelent?
For fuck's sake, if the 9/11 conspiracy theorists spent one percent of the time investigating the actual crimes of US imperialism that they do poring over the minutiae of the World Trade Center attack, they would have produced a wealth of actually useful information. September 11th was a fairly clear case where the US had given intensive military and espionage training to Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, and reaped the whirlwind when those fundamentalists turned against them. Nothing about the conspiracist take is compelling, especially given that hijackings are not particularly that hard to execute, while a false flag operation would have been far more difficult. If you don't want to be dismissed as a crank on this issue, present some real evidence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who is "they?" Don't you realize that there is not one unified conspiracy theory? Saying "they're wrong" makes it seem like you can either be pro-conspiracy or anti-conspiracy, and anyone on the other side is a nutcase enemy.

By Jove, I think you've got it! Yes, conspiracy theorists are nutcases, on the same level as devout religionists or people who believe in crystal therapy.

[Il Medico]

Ignore them, like any sane human being.

[Psy]

By Jove, I think you've got it! Yes, conspiracy theorists are nutcases, on the same level as devout religionists or people who believe in crystal therapy.

But there are conspiracies, hell the Marxist theory of capitalism can't work without capitalists conspiring with each other to form bourgeoisie states. To say conspiracies don't exist within a Marxist stand point would have the ruling class so inept it can't even pick up a phone and talk with each other to coordinate its efforts.

The problem with most conspiracy theorists is not that they believe in conspiracies but that they come to the wrong conclusion because they are not asking the right questions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But there are conspiracies, hell the Marxist theory of capitalism can't work without capitalists conspiring with each other to form bourgeoisie states. To say conspiracies don't exist within a Marxist stand point would have the ruling class so inept it can't even pick up a phone and talk with each other to coordinate its efforts.

They don't conspire. They are actually quite brazen about it; otherwise we'd never hear about it. They rely mainly on people buying into their mythology or otherwise not giving a damn. The secrets they do keep tend to be the kind of thing they would keep from each other anyway; stuff like military secrets, espionage and the like.


The problem with most conspiracy theorists is not that they believe in conspiracies but that they come to the wrong conclusion because they are not asking the right questions.

I would go further and say they are not even asking the right kind of questions; the "answers" they get are, to quote Feynman, "not even wrong".

[yobbos1]

Conspiracies are everywhere and always have been everywhere. The mistake the current theorists make is believing that everything that happens particularly in and to America is part of one vast overarching conspiracy to enslave the entire world. It really does bear all the hallmarks of a cult when you look closely at it. The answer is; the conspiracy theorists are mainly wrong and it does not matter one whit to a leftist if they are not wrong. It merely confirms the lengths that capitalists and fascist wannabes will go to in achieving their ends.

[Psy]

They don't conspire. They are actually quite brazen about it; otherwise we'd never hear about it. They rely mainly on people buying into their mythology or otherwise not giving a damn. The secrets they do keep tend to be the kind of thing they would keep from each other anyway; stuff like military secrets, espionage and the like.

Conspire: To plan or plot secretly.

No the ruling class don't plan and plot publicly. You don't see any bourgeoisie president actually being up front with the people i.e "we (the ruling class) need more police to protect our property from you unwashed masses" or companies being up front with workers "We are not exploiting your labor enough so we are going to force you to work harder for less money in order to increase the amount of surplus value we exert from your labor."



I would go further and say they are not even asking the right kind of questions; the "answers" they get are, to quote Feynman, "not even wrong".
Well they are correct in that there are those planning and plotting in secret but this is natural in a class hierarchy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Conspire: To plan or plot secretly.

No the ruling class don't plan and plot publicly. You don't see any bourgeoisie president actually being up front with the people i.e "we (the ruling class) need more police to protect our property from you unwashed masses" or companies being up front with workers "We are not exploiting your labor enough so we are going to force you to work harder for less money in order to increase the amount of surplus value we exert from your labor."

Of course they do, they just use different language. They do so to make our exploitation seem natural and normal, and paint anyone who questions the current order of things as unreasonable in some manner, if they even acknowledge the existence of dissent.

[Psy]

Of course they do, they just use different language. They do so to make our exploitation seem natural and normal, and paint anyone who questions the current order of things as unreasonable in some manner, if they even acknowledge the existence of dissent.
Here is a test, try to sit in on a closed door meeting of the ruling class. What do you think the ruling class would do if they found their private meetings were being spied on? Why does the ruling class have private meetings? Doesn't private meetings point to the ruling class planning in secret?

Also they conspire against each other i.e Ford Motor Company conspires against General Motor Company i.e they plan in secret how to take each others market share.

[gorillafuck]

Who is "they?" Don't you realize that there is not one unified conspiracy theory? Saying "they're wrong" makes it seem like you can either be pro-conspiracy or anti-conspiracy, and anyone on the other side is a nutcase enemy.
I was clearly referring to the 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theory.

[Crux]

Since the local conspiracy theorist/9/11 truthers were taken over (from with in no less) by neo-nazis not so long ago I regard anyone espousing them with suspicion. These days we, as in the left in general, kick them out of our events when they try to show up.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here is a test, try to sit in on a closed door meeting of the ruling class. What do you think the ruling class would do if they found their private meetings were being spied on? Why does the ruling class have private meetings? Doesn't private meetings point to the ruling class planning in secret?

Private meeting =/= a secret coven gathering of Jewish bankers/Reptilians/Grays/Satanists/Freemasons/Illuminati/what have you.

The reasons they keep such meetings private are various - if they let any Joe Schmoe listen in, then spies, investigative journalists, generic rabble-rousers and other riff-raff would cause them trouble they would rather avoid. If that's a conspiracy, then my refusal to discuss my intimate personal habits with anyone outside my closest circle of friends is also a conspiracy.

The thing is that very few people, including members of the ruling class, see themselves as evil conspirators, twirling their moustaches as they plot the destruction of the world Dr Evil style. Rather they see themselves as an enlightened elite, steersmen of the world, protecting it from those who would seek to usurp their power for their own ends. To a large degree the ruling classes have bought into their own mythology, which is partly why the world is in such a shit state.


Also they conspire against each other i.e Ford Motor Company conspires against General Motor Company i.e they plan in secret how to take each others market share.

Intra-class competition is hardly the same thing as a monolithic cabal which controls the entire world to a ludicrous degree, which is how your typical conspiracy theorist views the world. Class analysis has no place in the worldview of the conspiracy theorist - there are those valiant few who see "the Truth", those elites in on the grand conspiracy, and everyone else are the dumb sheepleheld under the sway of the grand masters.

[Psy]

Private meeting =/= a secret coven gathering of Jewish bankers/Reptilians/Grays/Satanists/Freemasons/Illuminati/what have you.

The reasons they keep such meetings private are various - if they let any Joe Schmoe listen in, then spies, investigative journalists, generic rabble-rousers and other riff-raff would cause them trouble they would rather avoid. If that's a conspiracy, then my refusal to discuss my intimate personal habits with anyone outside my closest circle of friends is also a conspiracy.

The thing is that very few people, including members of the ruling class, see themselves as evil conspirators, twirling their moustaches as they plot the destruction of the world Dr Evil style. Rather they see themselves as an enlightened elite, steersmen of the world, protecting it from those who would seek to usurp their power for their own ends. To a large degree the ruling classes have bought into their own mythology, which is partly why the world is in such a shit state.

I bet the Nazis saw themselves the same way even when they planed genocide of the Jewish population.

How the ruling class justifies conspiring against the proletariat doesn't change the fact they are conspiring against us.



Intra-class competition is hardly the same thing as a monolithic cabal which controls the entire world to a ludicrous degree, which is how your typical conspiracy theorist views the world. Class analysis has no place in the worldview of the conspiracy theorist - there are those valiant few who see "the Truth", those elites in on the grand conspiracy, and everyone else are the dumb sheepleheld under the sway of the grand masters.

Never said it was but by definition it still a conspiracy as they conspire the downfall of their competitors.

I believe in conspiracies because I can't see how there can a class war without the classes conspiring against each other as that kinda is how wars work. Speaking of which since there are wars there has to be conspires as wars are major conspires where militaries conspires against others in a major way. For example Hitler did not plan the invasion of France with France it conspired to invade France against France.

[revolution inaction]

Not at all. I believe what the evidence proves, or at least what it most likely proves.

if you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories then this is clearly not the case



I could care less what the government says; they've lied far too many times before to be considered truthful. Believing a notorious liar every time is far worse than not believing anything he says.
ignoring what the government says is one thing, automatically disbelieve everything they say is stupid, we don't have a choice between believe everything and believe nothing, it is posible for them to both lie and tell the truth.

[4 Leaf Clover]

9/11 is not radical leftists concern.

[Psy]

9/11 is not radical leftists concern.
That is like saying we the Treaty of Versaillies was not a leftist concern and that it was just a conspiracy theory that it was used by the victors of WWI to exploit Germany's failure in the war.

This is why I find this attitude towards conspiracies illogical as it means back in the 1930's when the Nazis were claiming Germany's enemies were conspiring against them we'd call them stupid conspiracy theorist rather then say they were speaking only half-truths (Britain, France and the US had conspired against them and continued to do so) yet Nazis were conspiring against Germans themselves (German minorities and the German proletariat) .

[RadioRaheem84]

People conspire all the time. It's called consciously pursuing your own interests.

Trade Unions get together and discuss plans to get better wages for their members. Sometimes they do not want management to get word of their meetings until they're finished. This is consciously pursuing their own interests.

It is only when we ascribe that to the ruling classes, then it is a "conspiracy".

What the ruling classes do is day to day routine. They leave a mountain of damning information behind all the time. It is just they rely on the massive myth making propaganda machine to deflect attention away from them onto something else.

What I hate is how right wing conspiracists have totally ruined the valuable sources that can be found in the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations on the actual policy prescriptions that the ruling classes recommend. Now whenever we bring these groups up, we get told we're conspiracy theorists!

[Pawn Power]

There are all ready so many crimes we know for a fact happened, why do we need to waste time on a conspiracy? Just look at the iraq war logs released by wikileaks- there is enough crimes there to cover many 9/11's.

[ed miliband]

I'm no expert on the ins and outs of Marxism, but surely suggesting that Marxist theories on class and capitalism are conspiracry theories is pretty anti-Marxist. The point is not, for example, that David Cameron acts as he does because he is an evil member of the bourgeoisie, but because it is in his class interest to act as he does. We can observe that classes exist and that members of these classes act to preserve or further their interests (even Adam Smith observed this), it's plainly obvious!

[Psy]

I'm no expert on the ins and outs of Marxism, but surely suggesting that Marxist theories on class and capitalism are conspiracry theories is pretty anti-Marxist. The point is not, for example, that David Cameron acts as he does because he is an evil member of the bourgeoisie, but because it is in his class interest to act as he does. We can observe that classes exist and that members of these classes act to preserve or further their interests (even Adam Smith observed this), it's plainly obvious!

Conspiracy is to plot against someone in secret, i.e "there is a conspiracy to pull a prank on me" would simply mean there is a group plotting in secret to pull a prank this group is not necessarily evil or bent on world domination they are just plotting in secret.

So when capitalists plot in their own class interest in secret they are conspiring.

[4 Leaf Clover]

point is - someone thinks its conspiracy , someone think its fact

[yobbos1]

Wasn't the notion that the communists weren't responsible for the burning of the Reichstag considered a conspiracy theory at one time? Just sayin'.

[gorillafuck]

Wasn't the notion that the communists weren't responsible for the burning of the Reichstag considered a conspiracy theory at one time? Just sayin'.
The facts weren't indicating that that was the truth in that situation, though. In 9/11, the facts indicate that it was not an inside job.

[Psy]

The facts weren't indicating that that was the truth in that situation, though. In 9/11, the facts indicate that it was not an inside job.
Still a conspiracy after the fact. The military conspired to hide the fact it is a paper tiger with obsolete military doctrines run by a bloated incompetent bureaucracy that on 9/11 suffered from a even more embracing SNFU then when they let the Japanese Navy sneak up on Peal Harbor and kind enough to the Japanese pilots to line all their air craft with no camouflage netting.

While Bush admin conspired to use 9/11 so the totally inept US military could invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

[R_P_A_S]

i feel sorry for that Loose Change kid.. the one with the glasses and speaks like he's afraid.. The fact he is so passionate about this bullshit and yet this interest and passion can go toward REAL issues.

[Vendetta]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Just my opinion.

[The Vegan Marxist]

On a personal note: Do I believe that 9/11 was an inside job? No. Why? Because science proves that it was not an inside job. I'm not taking the govt's. word. I'm taking the word of millions of scientists who've stated that it was not an inside job. And if you think that all those millions stating nay are all part of the cover up, then I truly feel sad on how simplistic your mind really works.

On a reality check: Does it matter whether 9/11 was an inside job or not? No! It doesn't matter one damn bit, because it's irrelevant when compared to a much larger problem that we all face daily! In my personal opinion, I think America had what it was coming on 9/11. Not that I support it, but, to be honest, it's not surprising one bit.

9/11, along with any other single tragedy events will act out as only one thing during class war - distraction.

[Amphictyonis]

Conspiracies exist. They happen all the time. The thing is, when you don't have all the evidence and you go around accusing people of things it makes you look foolish. i believe the bourgeois state would do much worse than kill 2,000 of it's own citizens but? It's like a murder detective going around passionately pinning a murder case on people with no solid evidence. I'd be open to look at some real evidence but until that happens I'd say the 9/11 conspiracies shouldn't be the focus. But since this is a thread about it.... ;)

One way to look at it- Lets just assume, for arguments sake, the US government did it (one thing we can all agree on is the US government used 9/11 for all sorts of gain). Ok conspiracy theorists, they did it....now what are you doing to help stop the bourgeois state from quadrupling the military budget, taking away 'rights' and facilitating a neo colonial agenda in the middle east? What are you doing to make sure people don't simply fear government but the capitalists who control it?

I personally think whether or not they did it is irrelevant- unless your goal is to break the idiotic spell of patriotism so many people are hypnotized by, I would believe it if they did do it but what the bourgeois state did afterward is more of a concern. Plus, the mantra of the bourgeoisie seems to be "get the people to distrust government while we get away with everything'. I'm not saying this from an 'uninformed' position. I read 2 of David Ray Griffin's books and have seen 5 or 6 of the documentaries in full. I was seriously entertaining the idea the state did it or let it happen but around 2006 realized it doesn't matter. For entertainment/pseudo debate purposes I'll bring up the most "compelling" circumstantial evidence they have. One was an alleged order Dick Cheney gave to NORAD- Norman Mineta (Secretary Of Transportation) was said to have said it was a 'stand down' order (not to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon). Mineta has since changed his story.

Another thing in Washington DC is the restricted airspace with the Pentagon itself housing some of the most high tech anti air craft systems. If a plane is in it's immediate airspace without a transponder to send 'friendly' signals to the anti air craft defense system it should be blown away in the sky. Another piece of circumstantial evidence they have is the fact Cheney was in control of NORAD that day. If what they say is true it was the first time a US vice president was ever given control of NORAD. The conspiracy theorists say NORAD was conducting exercises that day which made it impossible to single out any one aircraft on radar as a threat.

Then you have the BYU physics professor Steven Jones who is insistent that he has found traces of military grade thermate in the WTC rubble. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

^ a He's Mormon, what can I say?

Then they have that architects and engineers site where some engineers claim to have debunked the 'pancake theory' of building collapse. Then there is the building 7 collapse to explain as well. Another thing- the engineers who built the WTC said they designed each tower to take 2 head on hits from (I think it was) fully fueled B52 bombers or what was the largest planes in the day. Another is the Pentagons refusal to release the tapes of what hit the Pentagon. It would be quite simple and could shut conspiracy theorists up with one simple action.

Another strange thing is the terrorists passport that somehow survived a crash and crumbled building which pulverized bones and ended up in the FBI's hands. Then the FBI doesn't have Osama on it's most wanted list for 9/11 because they 'lack evidence'. Then there is the ISI funding from Pakistan and the Bush family taking over security for the WTC all hell..... Who gives a shit. We should have a 'debate' on the subject since I know so much about it. I'm willing to go either way but it's more of an entertainment thing than a socioeconomic thing- meaning, I don't think it matters if the state did it or not.

[WeAreReborn]

Wasn't the notion that the communists weren't responsible for the burning of the Reichstag considered a conspiracy theory at one time? Just sayin'.
Never heard that. Though it does seem that America seems to downplay the Soviets in WWII. I had an argument with one person who claimed America was one of the biggest and sole reasons Nazi Germany fell. But if we look at the kills and deaths of the soldiers in both sides on the European fronts, it looks a little differently.

[revolution inaction]

Wasn't the notion that the communists weren't responsible for the burning of the Reichstag considered a conspiracy theory at one time? Just sayin'.

it actually was a communist though

[The Vegan Marxist]

it actually was a communist though

Exactly. Marinus van der Lubbe was behind the Reichstag Building fire, as a response of complete repression & capitalist policies brought against the German people. Hitler then took power & saw the Communists as a direct threat to the new National-Socialist govt. This is why it was the Communists & social-democrats that were taken in the concentration camps first, a prototype prison by the name of Dachau. Then came the extermination camps, where millions of Soviet POW's were starved to death, shot in execution, or gas chambered.

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/the-prototyped-massacre-left-forgotten/

[Peace on Earth]

9/11 is not radical leftists concern.
Any time people are killed because of the actions of a government, it is not only a radical leftist's concern, but a human concern.

[Widerstand]

Any time people are killed because of the actions of a government, it is not only a radical leftist's concern, but a human concern.

9/11 is not the ultimate source of all violent human death though.

[Peace on Earth]

9/11 is not the ultimate source of all violent human death though.
Regardless, thousands perished in the attacks, and I'd like to know who was responsible.

[graymouser]

Any time people are killed because of the actions of a government, it is not only a radical leftist's concern, but a human concern.
You need a better sense of proportion, seriously, because this one is out of whack. Three thousand people died on 9/11 - that's nothing to sneeze at. But more American soldiers have died in the war in Iraq. Hundreds of times more Iraqis have died between the war in 1991, the embargo lasting until 2003, and the war since then. More Afghani people have died in that war than people died on 9/11. Over 100,000 people died in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and around 70,000 in Nagasaki. 2 million Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War. Even if US imperialism were fully responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, it would barely even be a drop in the bucket for the amount of blood that US imperialism has shed around the globe.

[Widerstand]

Regardless, thousands perished in the attacks, and I'd like to know who was responsible.

And why can't some terrorist fuckheads be responsible? I mean I gather that the government being responsible would lead to a massive (global) uproar and challenge the present terrorscare with all it's negative effects on domestic and foreign society. However, a lot of the fierce, and erroneous, defense of "inside job" explanations - against all contrary evidence - strikes me as wishful thinking at best.

[Psy]

For entertainment/pseudo debate purposes I'll bring up the most "compelling" circumstantial evidence they have. One was an alleged order Dick Cheney gave to NORAD- Norman Mineta (Secretary Of Transportation) was said to have said it was a 'stand down' order (not to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon). Mineta has since changed his story.

Another thing in Washington DC is the restricted airspace with the Pentagon itself housing some of the most high tech anti air craft systems. If a plane is in it's immediate airspace without a transponder to send 'friendly' signals to the anti air craft defense system it should be blown away in the sky. Another piece of circumstantial evidence they have is the fact Cheney was in control of NORAD that day. If what they say is true it was the first time a US vice president was ever given control of NORAD. The conspiracy theorists say NORAD was conducting exercises that day which made it impossible to single out any one aircraft on radar as a threat.


9/11 did give the US military the two major theater war they wanted back in late 90's. Yet the US military in these two major theaters showed that it is totally inept for example when faced with road side bombs on relatively open terrain in Iraq the US military still sticks to roads instead of solving the problem of road side bombs by simply not not using roads when ever possible, instead the US military says the insurgents are not playing fair by noticing the US military mostly sticks to roads then simply looking at road maps to plan ambushes and where to place IEDs.

How can the US military both totally inept in Iraq and Afganistan yet competent enough to pull off 9/11 other then using its ineptness to not stop 9/11?

[graymouser]

Regardless, thousands perished in the attacks, and I'd like to know who was responsible.
Who was responsible? Well, if you believe the 9/11 Commission's findings were at least in the correct ballpark, blame is deeply rooted in US foreign policy in Afghanistan (when the US spent a great deal of money training Mujahideen, such as Osama bin Laden, to fight the pro-Soviet government), Saudi Arabia (where most of the attackers were from and where the US bases are considered an affront to Islam) and Palestine (where the US props up the Zionist government of Israel). Terrorists created by the United States and motivated by the foreign policy of the United States attacked the US... why is this unbelievable? Hijackings happen, the 1970s were full of them. Buildings buckle and collapse when they are on fire, this is true even if steel doesn't become molten. US imperialism has a major share of the moral blame but the case for anyone other than 19 hijackers actually carrying out the attacks is non-existent.

[Ele'ill]

Does anyone else see this conversation being on topic but completely over-involved and otherwise off track?

I find it interesting but ultimately irrelevant as to who attacked the World Trade Center towers. The before, during and after events could have been carried out and assisted by any number of players- the purpose and/or what was capitalized on by all parties involved would stay the same regardless.

The issue is the system that allows atrocities to be beneficial to the victim's top percentage, overseers and government- and to be beneficial for the attackers.

The issue is the incentive.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I also think it matters not who attacked on 9/11. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, and as a matter of fact, terrorism peaked during the mid-late 1970's!!!!!!!!!! But now, all of a sudden, Americans are afraid nearly 4 decades after the fact? 9/11 was just another successful act of terror, like Hitler's Luftwaffe Blitzkrieg bombing civilian targets, or America's recent shock and awe campaign in Iraq. The media however, have made it the monster it now is.

When that old former neo-nazi shot up the South Carolina courthouse, the media identified him as a distressed American. When that guy flew into the IRS building (in a small plane) in Texas, and left a blog detailing why he did it (to get back at the bankers) the media played it off as stressed out guy go over edge.

Can you imagine if any one of the ^ above acts had been committed by an Arab, or a man with an Arabic sounding name? It would be a media frenzy. Headlines of the 'fifth column, denounce your neighbors' would be everywhere. Scary shit really, and they're just waiting for that oppurtunity too.

Anyways, 9/11 is all media hype, dont buy into it. Besides, because of 9/11 and the corporate media were involved in 2 endless quagmire/occupations, that in my opinion did nothing to stop that bomb that was found on that UPS air plane over the weekend. Billions wasted patrolling Baghadad and Kandahar, and not a single advantage. Anyways, fuck America, its doomed.

[Psy]

Anyways, 9/11 is all media hype, dont buy into it. Besides, because of 9/11 and the corporate media were involved in 2 endless quagmire/occupations, that in my opinion did nothing to stop that bomb that was found on that UPS air plane over the weekend. Billions wasted patrolling Baghadad and Kandahar, and not a single advantage. Anyways, fuck America, its doomed.
Well Iraq and Afghanistan has showed to other militarizes that the US military is a paper tiger, while the US military has fire power its military doctrines has gotten significantly worse since Vietnam. So even if the US goverment planned 9/11 it backfired on them big time as it showed the US military is far less of a threat then what many thought it was prior to 9/11. Remember the US military is up against disorganized insurgences not a organized guerrilla army like the PAVN in Vietnam and the US military is still getting its ass handed to it.

[The Douche]

Well Iraq and Afghanistan has showed to other militarizes that the US military is a paper tiger, while the US military has fire power its military doctrines has gotten significantly worse since Vietnam. So even if the US goverment planned 9/11 it backfired on them big time as it showed the US military is far less of a threat then what many thought it was prior to 9/11. Remember the US military is up against disorganized insurgences not a organized guerrilla army like the PAVN in Vietnam and the US military is still getting its ass handed to it.

How has the US not won a military victory in Iraq? How many US casualties per day are happening there? Is the country not run a by a US puppet government?

The Iraqi insurgency was militarily defeated because it lacked organization.

[Amphictyonis]

9/11 did give the US military the two major theater war they wanted back in late 90's. Yet the US military in these two major theaters showed that it is totally inept for example when faced with road side bombs on relatively open terrain in Iraq the US military still sticks to roads instead of solving the problem of road side bombs by simply not not using roads when ever possible, instead the US military says the insurgents are not playing fair by noticing the US military mostly sticks to roads then simply looking at road maps to plan ambushes and where to place IEDs.

How can the US military both totally inept in Iraq and Afganistan yet competent enough to pull off 9/11 other then using its ineptness to not stop 9/11?

I'm not making the argument 9/11 was an inside job. My main point was, it doesn't matter. I more so take Chomsky's position than that of a 9/11 truther but for arguments sake I'd say there's a difference between all our war and clandestine special ops. I don't think the US military is inept they simply don't give a shit if a certain amount of soldiers die. Were the British inept when they would line up red coats on the battle field to be shot down like toy soldiers? No, they expected many deaths of young and naive servicemen.

The goal was to install US puppet regimes who will be friendly to US interests in the middle east not to have a low body count. My end opinion on 9/111 is that it is defiantly possible the US bourgeois state let it happen. I'm simply not going to run around like Paul Revere screaming "The government did it! The government did it!" because no one had any real hard evidence (other than circumstantial) and in the end I don't think it matters. I don't put anything past the bourgeois establishment. Focusing on the minute details of empire shouldnt be our goal- our goal should be spreading class awareness not paranoia. Socialism should not be intertwined with conspiracy theories. We have a hard time gaining credibility as it is :)

[Barry Lyndon]

How has the US not won a military victory in Iraq? How many US casualties per day are happening there? Is the country not run a by a US puppet government?

The Iraqi insurgency was militarily defeated because it lacked organization.

The Iraqi insurgency basically defeated itself- it never evolved into a unified national organization like the Vietnamese resistance did but remained fatally divided into sectarian factions which spent as much time killing each other as fighting the foreign occupation.

US imperialism has also learned from Vietnam that it is not wise to have a large drafted civilian army fighting its wars, as it arouses widespread domestic opposition and is also not able to do the neccessary dirty work to wage a colonial war. Therefore Iraq has seen the unprecedented use of private contractors, who outnumber regular US troops. So even after most of the conventional US forces have "left", there is still a huge mercenary army that continues to wage a war the US public is barely even aware exists.

[Psy]

How has the US not won a military victory in Iraq? How many US casualties per day are happening there? Is the country not run a by a US puppet government?

The Iraqi insurgency was militarily defeated because it lacked organization.
Does the US military own the battlefield? Does it mostly have freedom of movement through Iraq? So how has it won? The insurgency is not just going after weak soft targets like supply convoys but is able to ambush combat units because US land doctrine has gone backwards, for example combat units do not stay off roads which was learned in WWII (that is the pointed of tracked vehicles) and this backwards thinking has gone into US vehicles like the Stryker that can't leave roads thus can't avoid ambushes and the M1 and Bradely have too thin tracks for their weight so they really can't move cross country either thus why the US military constantly gets stuck in Iraq and mostly sticks to roads thus constantly get hit by ambushes and road side bombs.

The US military acts like road side bombs are something new when they are not, the solution is already known by competent armies simply don't use roads and move over the country side with tracks which is why the US build the M113 but the US military thinks that is too out of fashion to use as a work horse (because it is too cheap a solution) and want to cling onto the white elephants that chain their forces to roads.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm not making the argument 9/11 was an inside job. My main point was, it doesn't matter. I more so take Chomsky's position than that of a 9/11 truther but for arguments sake I'd say there's a difference between all our war and clandestine special ops. I don't think the US military is inept they simply don't give a shit if a certain amount of soldiers die. Were the British inept when they would line up red coats on the battle field to be shot down like toy soldiers? No, they expected many deaths of young and naive servicemen.

The goal was to install US puppet regimes who will be friendly to US interests in the middle east not to have a low body count. My end opinion on 9/111 is that it is defiantly possible the US bourgeois state let it happen. I'm simply not going to run around like Paul Revere screaming "The government did it! The government did it!" because no one had any real hard evidence (other than circumstantial) and in the end I don't think it matters. I don't put anything past the bourgeois establishment. Focusing on the minute details of empire shouldnt be our goal- our goal should be spreading class awareness not paranoia. Socialism should not be intertwined with conspiracy theories. We have a hard time gaining credibility as it is :)

It's a documented fact that the US government is directly responsible, covertly and overtly, for the deaths of 2 million Koreans, 2 million Vietnamese, 600,000 Cambodians, 100,000 Laotians, 1 million Indonesians, 200,000 East Timorese, 200,000 Guatemalans, 1 million in Mozambique, 500,000 Angolans, 30,000 Nicaraguans, 60,000 Salvadorans, 3,000 Chileans, 30,000 Argentinians, 3,000 Panamanians, 1.5 million Iraqis, tens of thousands of Haitians and Afghans and Somalis, as well as hundreds of labor unionists and black/Latino/Native American revolutionaries within the United States itself.

But to conspiracy theorists, it is only the uproven 9/11 conspiracy that indicts the US government and makes it a monster. In their own words 'nothing else matters'.

[The Douche]

Does the US military own the battlefield? Does it mostly have freedom of movement through Iraq?

Yes, and yes. Moron.

Why do you keep talking about staying off the roads? How do you stay off the roads in a city?

You think wheeled vehicles can't manuever in the open terrain in Iraq? You're wrong.


Listen bud, I know you think you're hot shit and some kind of military genius cause you play RTS games and read some real cool books. But everytime you make a post I (and 99.9% of this board) facepalm so hard. Don't forget, nerd, I've been in this place that we're talking about right now, and you're out of your league.

[Amphictyonis]

But to conspiracy theorists, it is only the uproven 9/11 conspiracy that indicts the US government and makes it a monster. In their own words 'nothing else matters'.

An elitist and nationalistic standpoint. Humans are humans and as you said the US state has killed millions. It's no conspiracy.

[mikelepore]

I agree with everything you say except Oswald was not a sharpshooter and his military record shows that he was actually an atrocious shot and the rifle did not have it's sights set right.

I am using the results quoted in the TV documentaries (National Geographic Channel, etc.)

In addition, wikipedia article John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Rifle says:

"During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter)."

[Psy]

Yes, and yes. Moron


Why do you keep talking about staying off the roads?

Because that was learned in WWII, when a enemy is moving cross country you can't predict where the formation will be accurately enough to be effected by a planned explosive device.



How do you stay off the roads in a city?

Most of Iraq is open land.



You think wheeled vehicles can't manuever in the open terrain in Iraq? You're wrong.

Physics disagrees with you, wheels has a higher PSI then tracks due to a smaller surface area. Tell me if you serously think a Sytyker could follow a wide track transport like the Vityaz 8VOULfira3o

Overkill but it proves my point tracks allow vehicles to go anywhere, you just need to have tracks wide enough to get a low enough PSI.

Wheeled vehicles like the Styker gets stuck far more easily then tracked vehicles
u_E25Yyv0ZE

kW9RQsjTTno



Listen bud, I know you think you're hot shit and some kind of military genius cause you play RTS games and read some real cool books. But everytime you make a post I (and 99.9% of this board) facepalm so hard. Don't forget, nerd, I've been in this place that we're talking about right now, and you're out of your league.
And you don't seem to grasp psychics where wheels simply offer less surface area then tracks thus restricting where the vehicle can go, this is why bulldozers use tracks and not wheels.

Also it doesn't take a military genius to understand that if you forces are bound to roads it makes them easy to ambush as roads are public knowledge and fairly narrow thus it is easy to predict where the force will move through.

[Robocommie]

Jesus Christ Psy, not again.

[The Douche]

Because that was learned in WWII, when a enemy is moving cross country you can't predict where the formation will be accurately enough to be effected by a planned explosive device.

When you are an invading force it is necessary to secure the major population centers. In order to do this you have to have troops on the ground in those locations, and they have to be actively patrolling and searching for the enemy/their supplies/network. You can't just cruise through the fucking desert.


Most of Iraq is open land.


And taking control of miles of sand dunes is not how you win a war or conduct a succesful invasion. You have to secure the cities/pacify the population and eleminate the resistance.


And you don't seem to grasp psychics where wheels simply offer less surface area then tracks thus restricting where the vehicle can go, this is why bulldozers use tracks and not wheels.

No shit, sherlock. But you're painting this picture where MRAPs, strykers, and humvees can't get off of paved roads, which is simply not true.

Obviously I don't need to post videos of humvees driving through the desert, everybody (even you) know they can do that. Are tracked vehicles better? Obviously. But I'm sorry, how is that fact that wheeled vehicles are more likely to get stuck in rough terrain than tracked ones, somehow proof that the US lost the war?


Also it doesn't take a military genius to understand that if you forces are bound to roads it makes them easy to ambush as roads are public knowledge and fairly narrow thus it is easy to predict where the force will move through.

How...else...do...you...secure...a...city?



And how is anything in your post proof that the US lost the war in Iraq. You claimed this, I challenge you to support it. The US controls the government of Iraq through a puppet state, and they suffer virtually no combat losses day to day anymore. So how did the insurgency (which isn't even a coherent movement) win?

[Psy]

When you are an invading force it is necessary to secure the major population centers. In order to do this you have to have troops on the ground in those locations, and they have to be actively patrolling and searching for the enemy/their supplies/network. You can't just cruise through the fucking desert.


And taking control of miles of sand dunes is not how you win a war or conduct a succesful invasion. You have to secure the cities/pacify the population and eleminate the resistance.

True but they moved down roads when it is unnecessary for example HZwhfs1EVBs They had more then enough room to drive parallel to the road while being able to see the road.




No shit, sherlock. But you're painting this picture where MRAPs, strykers, and humvees can't get off of paved roads, which is simply not true.


Obviously I don't need to post videos of humvees driving through the desert, everybody (even you) know they can do that. Are tracked vehicles better? Obviously. But I'm sorry, how is that fact that wheeled vehicles are more likely to get stuck in rough terrain than tracked ones, somehow proof that the US lost the war?

It shows the US Army has forgotten what it learned during WWII. So even if everything goes fine in Iraq it shows that the US military has become even more of a bureaucratic mess then it was during Vietnam. I.E Russia didn't seem to be very impressed with the US's performance in Iraq as they intervened in Georgie during the Iraq war and easily brushed aside the US trained Georgian army.



How...else...do...you...secure...a...city?

Well if the Abrams wasn't such a pig on fuel or they had another tank they could use armor, you know like how the USSR put down insurrections in the soviet blocs. (Note I don't agree with the USSR putting them down). MBTs can usually take IEDs MBTs also can be fitted with mine clearers if the IED is pressure sensitve/megnetic sensitive.





And how is anything in your post proof that the US lost the war in Iraq. You claimed this, I challenge you to support it. The US controls the government of Iraq through a puppet state, and they suffer virtually no combat losses day to day anymore. So how did the insurgency (which isn't even a coherent movement) win?
That is because the US is pulling back to garrisons, meaning we could see Iraq become another Algiers in the future.

[Peace on Earth]

You need a better sense of proportion, seriously, because this one is out of whack. Three thousand people died on 9/11 - that's nothing to sneeze at. But more American soldiers have died in the war in Iraq. Hundreds of times more Iraqis have died between the war in 1991, the embargo lasting until 2003, and the war since then. More Afghani people have died in that war than people died on 9/11. Over 100,000 people died in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and around 70,000 in Nagasaki. 2 million Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War. Even if US imperialism were fully responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, it would barely even be a drop in the bucket for the amount of blood that US imperialism has shed around the globe.
Wherever and whenever innocent people are killed in the name of greed and pure evil, I'll seek answers and justice. Be it one, one hundred, or one million people, those responsible need to be found and put to justice.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Wherever and whenever innocent people are killed in the name of greed and pure evil, I'll seek answers and justice. Be it one, one hundred, or one million people, those responsible need to be found and put to justice.

Are you batman?

[The Douche]

True but they moved down roads when it is unnecessary

Hahahahahaha. Things like this demonstrate just how little you really understand about how a military works. You post a video of one convoy driving the road through the desert and think that means its the accepted way of doing things. That was probably some non-combat arms unit with a stupid company commander who doesn't have the skills and training to know what to do. (no, computer analysts don't know how to operate in combat situations) When we drove in Iraq, our SOP was to push off the road 100 meters if possible, as was the SOP of every other unit I came into contact with. Unfortunatly this was rarely possible.


It shows the US Army has forgotten what it learned during WWII. So even if everything goes fine in Iraq it shows that the US military has become even more of a bureaucratic mess then it was during Vietnam. I.E Russia didn't seem to be very impressed with the US's performance in Iraq as they intervened in Georgie during the Iraq war and easily brushed aside the US trained Georgian army

It doesn't show that, it shows that you just don't understand military operations. As for the Georgian affair, you're obviously grasping at straws.


Well if the Abrams wasn't such a pig on fuel or they had another tank they could use armor, you know like how the USSR put down insurrections in the soviet blocs. (Note I don't agree with the USSR putting them down). MBTs can usually take IEDs MBTs also can be fitted with mine clearers if the IED is pressure sensitve/megnetic sensitive.

Putting down an insurrection in one of two cities is not the same as conducting an invasion and occupation of an entire country. You can't just drive a couple hundred tanks into a city of a hundreds of thousands and think the population will accept your presence. And tanks most certainly can be destroyed by IEDs, do you know what they make IEDs our of? Fucking 105mm and 155mm howitzer shells. That can take out a tank. Not to mention the use of EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will take out an MBT. Also, most IEDs in Iraq were command detonated, not victim detonated.


That is because the US is pulling back to garrisons, meaning we could see Iraq become another Algiers in the future.

Don't get me wrong, the situation will degenerate as power struggles emerge. But we will not see a return to the violence of 03-06, the insurgency (again it was never a cohesive movement) has been militarily defeated.

[RadioRaheem84]

Of course the insurgency has been defeated. It was a rag tag group of former Baathists, Islamic foreign extremists and Shia rebels. I do not even know why the US blew them up like they did, as if they were going to actually win.

The country is now rolling out the red carpet for businesses and suppressing labor unions.

It is officially a puppet client state open for business.

[Psy]

Hahahahahaha. Things like this demonstrate just how little you really understand about how a military works. You post a video of one convoy driving the road through the desert and think that means its the accepted way of doing things. That was probably some non-combat arms unit with a stupid company commander who doesn't have the skills and training to know what to do. (no, computer analysts don't know how to operate in combat situations) When we drove in Iraq, our SOP was to push off the road 100 meters if possible, as was the SOP of every other unit I came into contact with. Unfortunatly this was rarely possible.

And with better cross country capabilities it would be much easier to push off 100 meters or even farther as there there is less land that will get you stuck.

The US Army learned about mud in WWII

7ckSHQ8QNac

There is mud in Iraq, mud can combated with increasing the surface area touching the ground to lower the ground pressure per square inch.




It doesn't show that, it shows that you just don't understand military operations. As for the Georgian affair, you're obviously grasping at straws.

One of the goals stated in the late 90's was to make competing powers not even think about challenging US dominance this was stated in a 2000 PBS documentary by US military leaders regarding the aims of the reforms to the US military at the time. Those reforms included the Stryker that weighs as much as a BMP-3 but the Stryker costs more, has less operational range, has thinner armor, less firepower, larger profile, less cross country maneuverability and less power to weight to ratio.



Putting down an insurrection in one of two cities is not the same as conducting an invasion and occupation of an entire country. You can't just drive a couple hundred tanks into a city of a hundreds of thousands and think the population will accept your presence.

True but tanks being the bully of the battlefield projects more power if they can stay deployed with the infantry in the city (meaning you need tanks that can stay operational for extended periods and can be serviced in the field).

Now that won't make them accept your presence but not having them won't either.




And tanks most certainly can be destroyed by IEDs, do you know what they make IEDs our of? Fucking 105mm and 155mm howitzer shells. That can take out a tank. Not to mention the use of EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will take out an MBT. Also, most IEDs in Iraq were command detonated, not victim detonated.

The crew has much more survivability and RF jamming can be used. If you had constant jamming eventually remote IEDs won't be planted and if you ask then how would troops communicate that is what field phones are for and why they are still around because of jamming is a common tactics of modern armies.




Don't get me wrong, the situation will degenerate as power struggles emerge. But we will not see a return to the violence of 03-06, the insurgency (again it was never a cohesive movement) has been militarily defeated.
The US military lied about winning in Vietnam in 1967 so why do you think we should believe it now? It has been well documented how in Vietnam military accomplishments in were completely fabricated as officers just wanted to get promoted and didn't care so most lied in their reports thus the myth of how the US never lost a battle in Vietnam as that was only true on paper as the US military always recorded everything as a victory during Vietnam.

Yes now they are weaker but what proof is there that the US military did that? Remember the insurgents were also fighting each other.

Also while the insurgency was never a cohesive movement a guerrilla army could still grow out of it. Remember there was a strong labor movement shortly after the US invasion that was put down by US forces, now with US forces leaving what is to stop to labor movement from coming back?

[Barry Lyndon]

And with better cross country capabilities it would be much easier to push off 100 meters or even farther as there there is less land that will get you stuck.

The US Army learned about mud in WWII

7ckSHQ8QNac

There is mud in Iraq, mud can combated with increasing the surface area touching the ground to lower the ground pressure per square inch.



One of the goals stated in the late 90's was to make competing powers not even think about challenging US dominance this was stated in a 2000 PBS documentary by US military leaders regarding the aims of the reforms to the US military at the time. Those reforms included the Stryker that weighs as much as a BMP-3 but the Stryker costs more, has less operational range, has thinner armor, less firepower, larger profile, less cross country maneuverability and less power to weight to ratio.


True but tanks being the bully of the battlefield projects more power if they can stay deployed with the infantry in the city (meaning you need tanks that can stay operational for extended periods and can be serviced in the field).

Now that won't make them accept your presence but not having them won't either.



The crew has much more survivability and RF jamming can be used. If you had constant jamming eventually remote IEDs won't be planted and if you ask then how would troops communicate that is what field phones are for and why they are still around because of jamming is a common tactics of modern armies.



The US military lied about winning in Vietnam in 1967 so why do you think we should believe it now? It has been well documented how in Vietnam military accomplishments in were completely fabricated as officers just wanted to get promoted and didn't care so most lied in their reports thus the myth of how the US never lost a battle in Vietnam as that was only true on paper as the US military always recorded everything as a victory during Vietnam.

Yes now they are weaker but what proof is there that the US military did that? Remember the insurgents were also fighting each other.

Also while the insurgency was never a cohesive movement a guerrilla army could still grow out of it. Remember there was a strong labor movement shortly after the US invasion that was put down by US forces, now with US forces leaving what is to stop to labor movement from coming back?

Psy, stop derailing the thread and please shut up for fucks sake.

As for the US military lying and covering things up-sure they do, all the time. But there is no way to cover up tens of thousands of casualties on your side, like what the Vietnamese resistance was inflicting. At this point dozens of the remaining American soldiers have been killed in Iraq this year, many in accidents not combat. It's not a remotely comparable situation.

[Psy]

Psy, stop derailing the thread and please shut up for fucks sake.

As for the US military lying and covering things up-sure they do, all the time. But there is no way to cover up tens of thousands of casualties on your side, like what the Vietnamese resistance was inflicting. At this point dozens of the remaining American soldiers have been killed in Iraq this year, many in accidents not combat. It's not a remotely comparable situation.

That doesn't mean the US has achieved military victory, it could be a calm simply due to the US pulling forces back and the forming of the new government in Iraq. The new ruling class the US set up in Iraq currently is far too weak to be able to withstand any armed uprising on its own.

[Peace on Earth]

Are you batman?
No, more like someone who actually cares about people dying (and those responsible) instead of refusing to look at anything besides capitalism as the cause of all human suffering, where nothing should be done until such an evil is erradicated. I don't know about you, but I don't have a one-track mind. It's possible to call for fair and true investigations into 9/11 and still focus on the destruction of capitalism.

[The Douche]

And with better cross country capabilities it would be much easier to push off 100 meters or even farther as there there is less land that will get you stuck.

You are seriously the best troll on revleft. Fuck you. You know this is a totally irrelevant point.


One of the goals stated in the late 90's was to make competing powers not even think about challenging US dominance this was stated in a 2000 PBS documentary by US military leaders regarding the aims of the reforms to the US military at the time. Those reforms included the Stryker that weighs as much as a BMP-3 but the Stryker costs more, has less operational range, has thinner armor, less firepower, larger profile, less cross country maneuverability and less power to weight to ratio.


Clearly the BMP-3 is superior to the stryker, guess thats why the US lost in Iraq...


True but tanks being the bully of the battlefield projects more power if they can stay deployed with the infantry in the city (meaning you need tanks that can stay operational for extended periods and can be serviced in the field).

Now that won't make them accept your presence but not having them won't either.

A tank's main gun is not going to be employed in support of infantry against enemy infantry. Its machine guns will, which means that and IFV or humvee (up-armored) is going to have the same fighting capability. The insurgents were only employing RPGs, small arms, mortars (poorly), and IEDs, so there is a considerable ammount of protection offered by even an up-armored humvee against these weapons.


The crew has much more survivability and RF jamming can be used. If you had constant jamming eventually remote IEDs won't be planted and if you ask then how would troops communicate that is what field phones are for and why they are still around because of jamming is a common tactics of modern armies.

Field phones are not reliable and really useable in urban manuver warfare. You would know that if you had any practical military experience. I have actually used field phones in a combat AO, and used radios, I would much rather use a system like the FBCB2, it reduces casualties and increases command and control by an immeasureable ammount.


The US military lied about winning in Vietnam in 1967 so why do you think we should believe it now? It has been well documented how in Vietnam military accomplishments in were completely fabricated as officers just wanted to get promoted and didn't care so most lied in their reports thus the myth of how the US never lost a battle in Vietnam as that was only true on paper as the US military always recorded everything as a victory during Vietnam.

Yes now they are weaker but what proof is there that the US military did that? Remember the insurgents were also fighting each other.

Also while the insurgency was never a cohesive movement a guerrilla army could still grow out of it. Remember there was a strong labor movement shortly after the US invasion that was put down by US forces, now with US forces leaving what is to stop to labor movement from coming back?

How do I know its true? Cause I was fucking there, moron. I have friends there now. Its not a lie, I saw enemy numbers steadily decline, I saw their tactics change cause they couldn't sustain their movement, I saw them being beaten. And no there was never a "strong labor movement" post-invasion, and the budding labor movement now is being far more voraciously repressed than it was by the US.




Stop talking out your ass about your absurd ideas on military tactics and weapons. You claimed that the US lost the war in Iraq, prove it, I dare you.

[timbaly]

I think the best evidence I have seen to discredit the conspiracy theorists is the article by Popular Mechanics and the study done by Purdue University. The study created a visual model to show people that the way the towers collapsed had nothing to do with bombs being planted inside the buildings.

You can read about it here:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html (http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html)

[Psy]

You are seriously the best troll on revleft. Fuck you. You know this is a totally irrelevant point.

Yes deploying vehicles that get stuck in mud in a country with mud is a prefectly logical idea. As you said there is no point holding sand dunes and most Iraqis live near mud and water.



Clearly the BMP-3 is superior to the stryker, guess thats why the US lost in Iraq...

The point is what is the point of the Styker? What does it offer that the M113 didn't? Yes M113 is no BMP-3 but neither is the Styker, the Styker really doesn't have any more firepower then the M113 but weights as much as a IFV.



A tank's main gun is not going to be employed in support of infantry against enemy infantry.

Tank's main guns were heavily used against infantry in WWII thanks to high explosive (HE) rounds. It is also SOP of the Russian army for tanks to attack infantry as that is the primary role of a MBT from the Russian perspective, since WWII the idea was to gain armor dominance in the battlefield then use your armor to get dominance over infantry with area effective rounds, the US even had a anti-personal fragmentation shell during Vietnam that proved highly effective.




Its machine guns will, which means that and IFV or humvee (up-armored) is going to have the same fighting capability. The insurgents were only employing RPGs, small arms, mortars (poorly), and IEDs, so there is a considerable ammount of protection offered by even an up-armored humvee against these weapons.

Why use machine guns? WWII and Vietnam proved main guns of tanks can be used to rain death on infantry so why wouldn't you do it Iraq?



Field phones are not reliable and really useable in urban manuver warfare. You would know that if you had any practical military experience. I have actually used field phones in a combat AO, and used radios, I would much rather use a system like the FBCB2, it reduces casualties and increases command and control by an immeasureable ammount.

True but radio jamming is common, that is why wire guided missles were invented it just became too easy to jam RF.

Also we are talking about being able to render remote detonation ineffective so I think it is worth the inconvenience.



How do I know its true? Cause I was fucking there, moron. I have friends there now. Its not a lie, I saw enemy numbers steadily decline, I saw their tactics change cause they couldn't sustain their movement, I saw them being beaten. And no there was never a "strong labor movement" post-invasion, and the budding labor movement now is being far more voraciously repressed than it was by the US.

Did you forget the oil workers strike back in 2003?




Stop talking out your ass about your absurd ideas on military tactics and weapons. You claimed that the US lost the war in Iraq, prove it, I dare you.
For starters the US failed to make an example of Iraq as a warning to others. This would be like if Nazi Germany was barely able to occupy the Rhineland after years of fighting it kinda kills further plans of conquest.

Next I agree the insurgency died down but it was not a strait up fight between the occupying forces and the insurgency, them fighting each other also weakened them thus it is to be seen that the US broke the insurgences will to fight.

I don't see the conflicts in Iraq going away instead they will only grow worse.

[Peace on Earth]

Can you two take your military chat somewhere where it matters?

[Psy]

Can you two take your military chat somewhere where it matters?
Here is the point with the technical military stuff taken out.

Imagine a criminal gang that wants to beat up a shop owner in public to make an example to the rest of the community so it could extort protection money. Yet the gang can't make quick work out of the shop keeper and loses some of its members before the shop keeper goes down. How does this work to the gangs advantage, they failed to show their stronger then the community, instead they showed how weak they are to the community.

So how does the US getting bogged down by a weak disorganized insurgency project anything but weakness of the US military?

[Robocommie]

Psy, insurgencies have always been hard to contain with conventional forces. Doesn't a fucking century of revolution and guerilla warfare demonstrate that? If you remember Saddam's conventional forces didn't take very long to take down, the trouble began with the insurgency. Like the Viet Cong, like the French and Spanish Maquis, and so on.

Please stop talking out of your ass. Especially to a guy who actually has some firsthand experience with this shit, when you don't. You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

[Psy]

Psy, insurgencies have always been hard to contain with conventional forces. Doesn't a fucking century of revolution and guerilla warfare demonstrate that?

Organized guerrilla forces yes, disorganized insurgents historically only been effective against soft targets for example the French insurgents against German occupation only was effective in sabotage and got their asses handed to them against German troops because they were not a organized disciplined guerrilla force.




Please stop talking out of your ass. Especially to a guy who actually has some firsthand experience with this shit, when you don't. You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

There are those in the military that think the US military is doing it wrong

http://www.combatreform.org/

So I'm not talking out my ass I'm holding a option held by US military personal that the US military has become a bureaucracy not a profession and that is why the US can't suppress insurgents in Iraq.

Now they are not Marxists but from a Marxists perspective imperialism has been able to suppress insurgents, if it wasn't possible for imperialism to easily crush insurgents imperialism won't be possible. So in a way the critics within the military are right the US military has failed in a imperialist sense to beat down unorganized undisciplined insurgents. Now if the insurgents in Iraq were organized and disciplined it would be different then we'd be looking at a guerrilla war or a revolutionary war.

[Robocommie]

Unbelievable.

[Psy]

Unbelievable.

In what way?

As I said there are military professionals that want the US military to be reformed so it can go back to being an effective imperialist force (okay they call it so the US tax payers gets bang for its buck, reduce US casualties and to quickly bring stability to the occupied countries).

In what way is spending over 5 years trying to crush a disorganized insurgency that wared against itself a major victory for US imperialism? What if they were an organized guerrilla force with no internal fighting? Or a revolutionary army like the POUM and CNT/FIA of the Spanish civilwar?

[chegitz guevara]

Personally, I have nothing but contempt for people who think 9/11 was an inside job, or was carried out by Mossad, or something like that.

[chegitz guevara]

BTW, here's what I wrote on Facebook, after playing for a couple days with a Moon Landing conspiracist.

"Conspiracy theories are a government plot to get the Left to make itself look stupid. It all makes sense! Who else stands to benefit from all these otherwise intelligent and useful people deliberately making themselves batshit insane? WHO!?! ... The government, that's who."

[Widerstand]

Conspiracy theories are a government plot to get the Left to make itself look stupid.

A) Most prominent conspiracy theorists don't identify as leftists.

B) The left looks stupid enough on it's own.

[Quail]

I honestly think that most conspiracy theories are completely ridiculous. A conspiracy theorist came up to me with some bullshit about vaccines a few weeks ago, and after I'd finally got him to go away, he added, "Have you heard that 9/11 was an inside job?" Buy that point I was so sick of hearing him, I just gave him a patronising nod before pretending my baby needed something.

[Ol' Dirty]

It's pretty stupid to spend all of your time worrying about something that might have happened instead of combatting things that obviously did and are still happening.

[Amphictyonis]

I think the best evidence I have seen to discredit the conspiracy theorists is the article by Popular Mechanics and the study done by Purdue University. The study created a visual model to show people that the way the towers collapsed had nothing to do with bombs being planted inside the buildings.

You can read about it here:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html (http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html)

I guess this is their info- wJ59gO0UtyA ELp1bh5cT7M etc and so on.....

[Robocommie]

BTW, here's what I wrote on Facebook, after playing for a couple days with a Moon Landing conspiracist.

"Conspiracy theories are a government plot to get the Left to make itself look stupid. It all makes sense! Who else stands to benefit from all these otherwise intelligent and useful people deliberately making themselves batshit insane? WHO!?! ... The government, that's who."

Hah, that reminds me of the time I jokingly told a guy on Revleft I thought he was an FBI plant sent to make Leftists look stupid. :lol:

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

BTW, here's what I wrote on Facebook, after playing for a couple days with a Moon Landing conspiracist.

"Conspiracy theories are a government plot to get the Left to make itself look stupid. It all makes sense! Who else stands to benefit from all these otherwise intelligent and useful people deliberately making themselves batshit insane? WHO!?! ... The government, that's who."

That is a conspiracy theory all in itself.
I believe that conspiracy theories to some people are like heaven to other.
People want to believe it because it will give them some sort of relief at the end of the day, but the sad fact is, its just some shitheads babbling said enough times to make it sound legit.

[chegitz guevara]

That is a conspiracy theory all in itself.
I believe that conspiracy theories to some people are like heaven to other.
People want to believe it because it will give them some sort of relief at the end of the day, but the sad fact is, its just some shitheads babbling said enough times to make it sound legit.


A) Most prominent conspiracy theorists don't identify as leftists.

B) The left looks stupid enough on it's own.

Self-referential humor anyone?

[graymouser]

Wherever and whenever innocent people are killed in the name of greed and pure evil, I'll seek answers and justice. Be it one, one hundred, or one million people, those responsible need to be found and put to justice.
Oh, can it with the melodrama. "Greed and pure evil"? That's fucking comic book shit, not even worth considering seriously. "Answers and justice"? What are you going to look to for justice, the United States itself that kills more people a year in Iraq and Afghanistan without batting an eyelash? The United Nations that had no problem letting half a million Iraqi children starve to death from 1991 to 2003?


No, more like someone who actually cares about people dying (and those responsible) instead of refusing to look at anything besides capitalism as the cause of all human suffering, where nothing should be done until such an evil is erradicated. I don't know about you, but I don't have a one-track mind. It's possible to call for fair and true investigations into 9/11 and still focus on the destruction of capitalism.
It is the system of monopoly finance capital that drives imperialism, which is responsible for the atrocious policies of the United States in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that were the provocation of the actual terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11/01. That's what radicals do: we look for the root causes of problems and solve things from there, instead of trying to make up bizarre and convoluted theories showing that such-and-such government official is "pure evil."

Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are a one-way trap leading away from a view of the class forces at work in the geopolitical system. They get you chasing after minutiae instead of focusing on organizing around the big picture.

[The Douche]

For starters the US failed to make an example of Iraq as a warning to others. This would be like if Nazi Germany was barely able to occupy the Rhineland after years of fighting it kinda kills further plans of conquest.

Next I agree the insurgency died down but it was not a strait up fight between the occupying forces and the insurgency, them fighting each other also weakened them thus it is to be seen that the US broke the insurgences will to fight.

I don't see the conflicts in Iraq going away instead they will only grow worse.

Again, none of this is actual reasoning and support to be able to claim the "US lost the war in Iraq", again I challenge you to support your claim. I'm no entertaining your musings about military technology anymore, you are obviously a child with a fetish for soviet technology, and I'm not going to needlessly debate about that, since its not related, I don't care, and you don't really understand these things.

[Psy]

Again, none of this is actual reasoning and support to be able to claim the "US lost the war in Iraq", again I challenge you to support your claim.

By that logic the USSR won the war in Afganistan because when it left there was a freidnly goverment in power, it didn't last long but it was in power when the USSR pulled out of Afganistan.

At the very least you have to admit the US totally messed up the war, the Iraqi army was more then willing to enforce US authority in Iraq early on yet the US instead laied them off and including them when rounding up suspects. Thus the Iraq war could have ended much sooner with the US having much more control over Iraq if they followed the imperialist play book of turning to the local ruling class to restore order and running the nation through them. The US was not there as a revolutionary army to liberate Iraqis so pissing off the local ruling class was counterproductive.



I'm no entertaining your musings about military technology anymore, you are obviously a child with a fetish for soviet technology, and I'm not going to needlessly debate about that, since its not related, I don't care, and you don't really understand these things.
The M113 is US technology and there are those in the US military that want to retire the Stryker for upgraded M113s and the Canadian Army is shifting away from LAV III and towards upgraded M113 due LAVIII getting suck in mud and causing mission failures.

You don't seem to understand the military industrial complex is not really geared towards giving US troops the right tools for the job as profits drive their decisions. The Stryker gives them higher profits marines while the M113 doesn't as they are dirt cheap to produce and maintain (their labor value is very low even though their utility is high). Do you really think that Marx's of law of value is not in play when it comes to what the US military contractors sells the US military? The law of value applies to all militaries it is just with the huge US military budget the US military is more sensitive to what is profitable over what is useful.

[Widerstand]

Self-referential humor anyone?

Sorry I have the experience that some people really are that [...], you name it.

[Amphictyonis]

I think conspiracy theories are entertaining for some people, it makes life more interesting but at the same time I don't find it hard to believe that the bourgeoisie would use shady tactics to manipulate/control world events (beacuse they in fact do so). The thing is, as many people have pointed out, there are so many obvious cases of injustice perpetrated around the globe it's almost 'nationalistic' of us to focus on 2,000 dead Americans (even if it had really been an inside job).

The murder of literally millions of human beings has taken place since 9/11/01 all facilitated by the various bourgeois state's in the middle east. Since the end of WW2 the USA alone has probably killed upwards of at least 10 million people, easy. (I'd actually like to see an accurate 'US imperialism body count').

Conspiracy theories can be fun to consider, like thinking about the possibility of aliens or different dimensions but if you form your world view around the unprovable it's akin to having faith in god. I'll entertain the ideas but I'm not going to take that leap of faith without proof.