Castro joins "conspiracy nuts"

[peaccenicked]

With Chavez calling for a new 9/11 inquiry. Cindy Sheenan, America's leading peacemom issuing a warning of a new 9/11 type attack. Castro takes his first step
into "conspiracy theory". http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/16/...Cuba-Castro.php

What is all this talk of right wing conspiracy theory. I suggest it is pure nonsense.
What is more it is cowardly non sense.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by peaccenicked@July 29, 2007 06:05 am
With Chavez calling for a new 9/11 inquiry. Cindy Sheenan, America's leading peacemom issuing a warning of a new 9/11 type attack. Castro takes his first step
into "conspiracy theory". http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/16/...Cuba-Castro.php

What is all this talk of right mwing conspiracy theory. I suggest it is pure nonsense.
What is more it is cowardly non sense.

when did he say this?

[peaccenicked]

Obviously it is a conspiracy against Castro. Associated Press are liars.

[bootleg42]

And the article was very mal-worded. He's not joining in that conspiracy.

And I think Chavez only believes that because he hates that U.S. government SO MUCH for well........................do I have to say anything?? Personally I don't blame him.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Look, a major problem with terrorism is that it clouds things. None of us can know who actually carried out the attacks on 9/11, because of the very nature of the acts.

Having suspicions that the U.S. government was either involved in, or didn't actively work to prevent those attacks does not make one a "right wing conspiracy nut" (though surely, many of those types do believe such).

There is precedence for all sorts of false flag operations, purposely letting one's guard down, etc., to help win over the population to military endeavours.

[peaccenicked]

Castro according the AP has joined the ranks of the Let it happen brigade which
seems to be the growing alternative to the Made it happen brigade. There is absolutely no doubt about that assuming AP is not manufactured this story.
It is also in the Scotsman. AP are a well established source of international news and on this I doubt they would betray professional standards of journalism.

Let it happen delibrately and made it happen are not that far away from one another, both require conspirators. Castro is in fact a conspiracy theorist. It can not be denied. It is not me who is looking stupid here.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Umm... you're talking about "professional standards of journalism" in reference to the bourgeois press?

Let's not forget that everything has a class character / content.

Anyway, you can read what Fidel wrote yourself here: http://granma.cu/ingles/2007/julio/lun16/reflexion.html

Everything I said in my above post applies.

[peaccenicked]

to quote Castro from your reference to granma.
"They can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war "


That says Let it happen to me; I sugest you are either in shock or delibrately lying to me.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I guess you're not reading my posts...

Having suspicions that the U.S. government was either involved in, or didn't actively work to prevent those attacks does not make one a "right wing conspiracy nut" (though surely, many of those types do believe such).

There is precedence for all sorts of false flag operations, purposely letting one's guard down, etc., to help win over the population to military endeavours.

In other words, Fidel can suspect foul play without being a rightist..

Though even associating Fidel with rightism is such a joke it probably doesn't really deserve a response.

[peaccenicked]

Ok, I think I get you, you are right about Castro but you are wrong about conspiracy theories. If anybody suspects foul play, they get attacked as a right wing conspiracy nut. So is it ok for Castro to suspect foul play and not for me, a life long communist who merely wants an independent inquiry because the accusations are indeed trully baffling, take this one. www.voxfux.com

[TC]

Err, the "made it happen" notion implies a conspiracy, the "let it happen" only implies negligence. Its a documented fact that the US was warned by multiple foreign intelligence about 9/11 type plots and that the Bush administration reduced the efforts of the Clinton administration against Osama Bin Laden's organization. It doesn't take a conspiracy to de-prioritize an area of 'national security' that doesn't serve a particular administration.

[peaccenicked]

hmm! tragic clown. The thing is Castro implies that they deliberately let it happen.

Perhaps you should read it again.

They can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war "

[Luís Henrique]

Conspiracies do exist. Some fail, some attain their ends. That's no secret.

Conspiracies do not run the world. The knowledge and power of conspirators are limited, and they are not all of them on the same side*. Stupidity, negligence, corruption, lazyness, randomness, also exist, and play important roles in human history. There is no use in mistifying our enemies into invincible fiends.

Originally posted by attributed to Castro
They can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war

If Castro said that, then Castro is purely, plainly and simply wrong. "They" certainly cannot prevent all attacks on "their people"; there is no way to prevent everything. The machine is not - thankfully! - perfect, it is full of flaws - technical flaws, human flaws, ideological flaws.

If Castro, besides saying that, is also now believing in it earnestly, systematically - then yes, he is spreading bourgeois ideology. If he came to make beliefs of that nature the core of his interpretation of events, then yes, he did become a "conspiracy nut". Probable? I don't think so; I think he, at worst, made a punctual mistake. Possible? Yes. He's of old age now, this is known to affect the way people's brains work.

* for instance, everybody knows the CIA has repeatedly tried to kill Castro. This is no "conspiracy theory". Also everybody knows that the CIA has repeatedly failed in this regard. Conspirations fail, even backfire. A conspiracy theorist will try to prove you that the CIA failed in murdering Castro because they wanted to fail (perhaps to prove that they don't rule the world?). This we know is false. They failed because they were outsmarted by the Cuban intelligence, or because their plans were ill-thought, or because the people who should execute the plans made mistakes, etc.

Luís Henrique

[peaccenicked]

Thank you Luis Henrique for your wisdom as it is as such.
Some flaws, who said conspiracies rule the world. Is their a quote I have missed or something. Now there is a little matter of Imperialism. Does Imperialism have leading imperialists? Are there not people at the top deciding the price of tea in Brazil for instance? Are they conspirators or not?

It is just plain silly to talk of conspiracies in general. Conspiracies are specific.
If Castro is just plain wrong, then we know that he is for it is not impossible for
America to be attacked unawares. As it is not impossible for Goliath to be knocked out by David.


But is it wrong to smell a rat? Is it wrong to wonder if there is a conspiracy to wonder how deep it might go. Did not that govern the Watergate investigation. All I have said is Castro smells a rat, I smell a rat, I say it should be investigated again so does Chavez. It is feeble to say he wants that only because he hates America. There is plenty of new material coming out.

The question about the Illuminati is obscure. It is pretty faceless and speculative, but new eye witnesses and new scholarship has shown the original 9/11 commission to be a sham. 'Press for Truth' shows ample proof that it was a sham. It is not a necessary condition of wanting a new investigation to believe that a few, a very small group of people make the most important decisions in the lives of ordinary people.

[Colonello Buendia]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique@July 29, 2007 03:35 pm



* for instance, everybody knows the CIA has repeatedly tried to kill Castro. This is no "conspiracy theory". Also everybody knows that the CIA has repeatedly failed in this regard. Conspirations fail, even backfire. A conspiracy theorist will try to prove you that the CIA failed in murdering Castro because they wanted to fail (perhaps to prove that they don't rule the world?). This we know is false. They failed because they were outsmarted by the Cuban intelligence, or because their plans were ill-thought, or because the people who should execute the plans made mistakes, etc.

Luís Henrique

it failed because there was a right wing american bastard at the helm of the CIA operation, oh and the agents were probably spastics

[Red Rebel]

Way to miss the whole point of the reflection AP.

Read what Fidel actually said in Bush, Healthcare and Education.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

on a broader topic ... would you all consider the following events in history to be similar in any way to the events of 9-11:

1) Nero Burns Rome 64
2) The Gunpowder Plot 1605
3) Sinking of the Maine in Havana harbor 1898
4) the Reichstag Fire 1933
5) Attack on Pearl Harbor 1941
6) Operation Northwoods 1962
7) the Gulf of Tonkin incident 1964

how are these events similar and how are they different?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by peaccenicked@July 29, 2007 04:25 pm
Some flaws, who said conspiracies rule the world. Is their a quote I have missed or something. Now there is a little matter of Imperialism. Does Imperialism have leading imperialists?

Of course. They are just that, leaders, though. Not owners or something.

Are there not people at the top deciding the price of tea in Brazil for instance? Are they conspirators or not?

Of absolutely course, no!

The price of tea is given by how supply and demand adequate it around its value, which is just labour embodied in it. There is absolutely no need of "people at the top" deciding its price in a secret room, while laughing "mbwahmwahwahah".

But is it wrong to smell a rat? Is it wrong to wonder if there is a conspiracy to wonder how deep it might go.

If you have any elements to indicate there was a conspiracy, then no. The problem starts when the absence of such evidence is taken as proof that there is a conspiracy:

- The government did 9/11 itself.
- Well, do you have some evidence of that?
- No, there is no evidence, which proves that the government, besides doing 9/11, also suppressed all evidence of doing it.

The question about the Illuminati is obscure. It is pretty faceless and speculative, but new eye witnesses and new scholarship has shown the original 9/11 commission to be a sham.

1. I have seen no evidence that it was a sham.
2. Even if it was a sham, this is no evidence of governmental participation in 9/11. The "sham" could be intended to hide blatant incompetence or stupidity.

'Press for Truth' shows ample proof that it was a sham. It is not a necessary condition of wanting a new investigation to believe that a few, a very small group of people make the most important decisions in the lives of ordinary people.

It would do all of us a lot more good if, instead of a new investigation on 9/11, we had a complete investigation on the whole of Washington's Middle Eastern policies. This is the correct reasoning: the US meddling with Middle Eastern affairs spreads anger and discontent among Middle Eastern people, to the point that some of them are willing to blow themselves into pieces to take revenge. This makes American people potential targets for terrorist acts.

Luís Henrique

[peaccenicked]

It is strange that you see no evidence. Is it not true that you would accept no evidence? That seems to be the prejudice here.
There is evidence and counter evidence all over the net. To say different is to be both dishonest and foolish. An enquiry would be useful.


An enquiry into US war crimes would be very useful indeed.

But to blame Arabs for 9/11 is still very iffy to any open mind that has looked both sides of the ball game. There is no real evidence that is not open to refutable analysis.
The document Blair produced had no evidence in it whatsoever.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML@July 29, 2007 06:37 pm
on a broader topic ... would you all consider the following events in history to be similar in any way to the events of 9-11:

1) Nero Burns Rome 64

Well, there seems to be no conclusive proof that Nero actually burnt Rome. This is a version spread by historians belonging to the Senatorial Class, which was at odds with Nero and Nero's policies. It is possible that Nero took the fire as a pretext to unleash a brutal anti-Christian persecution.

2) The Gunpowder Plot 1605

As far as I know, it was an earnest attempt to explode the houses of Parliament, in order to kill James the First. It seems it was used as a pretext for persecution against Catholics and other oppositionists, but I have never seen the plot's authenticity, in itself, questioned.

3) Sinking of the Maine in Havana harbor 1898

Apparently an accident, use by some (but not by the US administration itself) to stir anti-Spanish feelings in the United States.

4) the Reichstag Fire 1933

A forgery: a mentally ill person setting a governmental building (which the government in fact cared not about) afire. The (Nazi) government was in the know of what happened, and deliberately used the incident to justify a crackdown on all opposition.

5) Attack on Pearl Harbor 1941

An open act of war of a great power against other.

6) Operation Northwoods 1962

A proposed, and never implemented, series of false-flag operations aimed at provoking popular ire against Cuba. Most of them included actions that would result in no deaths, fake deaths, or deaths of foreigners (Haitian and Dominican, besides of Cuban refugees).

7) the Gulf of Tonkin incident 1964

Probably an undercover act of war by the United States against Vietnam, busted, resulting in a North Vietnamese counter-attack. Minor damage, no casualties, and a huge hubbub about those evil North Vietnamese daring attack an American military vessel.

how are these events similar and how are they different?

There seem to be more differences than similarities between them, even if most of them (Pearl Harbour being the exception) imply the use of misinformation to justify acts of aggression.

How about the USS Liberty incident?

Luís Henrique