I believe in conspiracies

John Laughland says the real nutters are those who believe in al-Qa’eda and weapons of mass destruction

Believing in conspiracy theories is rather like having been to a grammar school: both are rather socially awkward to admit. Although I once sat next to a sister-in-law of the Duke of Norfolk who agreed that you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers, conspiracy theories are generally considered a rather repellent form of intellectual low-life, and their theorists rightfully the object of scorn and snobbery. Writing in the Daily Mail last week, the columnist Melanie Phillips even attacked conspiracy theories as the consequence of a special pathology, of the collapse in religious belief, and of a ‘descent into the irrational’. The implication is that those who oppose ‘the West’, or who think that governments are secretive and dishonest, might need psychiatric treatment.

In fact, it is the other way round. British and American foreign policy is itself based on a series of highly improbable conspiracy theories, the biggest of which is that an evil Saudi millionaire genius in a cave in the Hindu Kush controls a secret worldwide network of ‘tens of thousands of terrorists’ ‘in more than 60 countries’ (George Bush). News reports frequently tell us that terrorist organisations, such as those which have attacked Bali or Istanbul, have ‘links’ to al-Qa’eda, but we never learn quite what those ‘links’ are. According to two terrorism experts in California, Adam Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud, this is because they do not exist. ‘In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow al-Qa’eda out of proportion,’ they write. They argue that the name ‘al-Qa’eda’ was invented in the West to designate what is, in reality, a highly disparate collection of otherwise independent groups with no central command structure and not even a logo. They claim that some terrorist organisations say they are affiliated to bin Laden simply to gain kudos and name-recognition for their entirely local grievances.

By the same token, the US-led invasion of Iraq was based on a fantasy that Saddam Hussein was in, or might one day enter into, a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden. This is as verifiable as the claim that MI6 used mind control to make Henri Paul crash Princess Diana’s car into the 13th pillar of the tunnel under the Place de l’Alma. With similar mystic gnosis, Donald Rumsfeld has alleged that the failure to find ‘weapons of mass distraction’, as Tony Blair likes to call them, shows that they once existed but were destroyed. Indeed, London and Washington have shamelessly exploited people’s fear of the unknown to get public opinion to believe their claim that Iraq had masses of anthrax and botulism. This played on a deep and ancient seam of fear about poison conspiracies which, in the Middle Ages, led to pogroms against Jews. And yet it is the anti-war people who continue to be branded paranoid, even though the British Prime Minister himself, his eyes staring wildly, said in September 2002, ‘Saddam has got all these weapons ...and they’re pointing at us!’

In contrast to such imaginings, it is perfectly reasonable to raise questions about the power of the secret services and armed forces of the world’s most powerful states, especially those of the USA. These are not ‘theories’ at all; they are based on fact. The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other US secret services spend more than $30,000,000,000 a year on espionage and covert operations. Do opponents of conspiracy theories think that this money is given to the Langley, Virginia Cats’ Home? It would also be churlish to deny that the American military industry plays a very major role in the economics and politics of the US. Every day at 5 p.m., the Pentagon announces hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to arms manufacturers all over America — click on the Department of Defense’s website for details — who in turn peddle influence through donations to politicians and opinion-formers.

It is also odd that opponents of conspiracy theories often allow that conspiracies have occurred in the past, but refuse to contemplate their existence in the present. For some reason, you are bordering on the bonkers if you wonder about the truth behind events like 9/11, when it is established as fact that in 1962 the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer, tried to convince President Kennedy to authorise an attack on John Glenn’s rocket, or on a US navy vessel, to provide a pretext for invading Cuba. Two years later, a similar strategy was deployed in the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident, when US engagement in Vietnam was justified in the light of the false allegation that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on a US destroyer. Are such tactics confined to history? Paul O’Neill, George Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, has just revealed that the White House decided to get rid of Saddam eight months before 9/11.

Indeed, one ought to speak of a ‘conspir- acy of silence’ about the role of secret services in politics. This is especially true of the events in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It is the height of irresponsibility to discuss the post-communist transition without extensive reference to the role of the spooks, yet our media stick doggedly to the myth that their role is irrelevant. During the overthrow of the Georgian president, Eduard Shevardnadze, on 22 November 2003, the world’s news outlets peddled a wonderful fairy-tale about a spontaneous uprising — ‘the revolution of roses’, CNN shlockily dubbed it — even though all the key actors have subsequently bragged that they were covertly funded and organised by the US.

Similarly, it is a matter of public record that the Americans pumped at least $100 million into Serbia in order to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, and huge sums in the years before. (An election in Britain, whose population is eight times bigger than Yugoslavia’s, costs about two thirds of this.) This money was used to fund and equip the Kosovo Liberation Army; to stuff international observer missions in Kosovo with hundreds of military intelligence officers; to pay off the opposition and the so-called ‘independent’ media; and to buy heavily-armed Mafia gangsters to come and smash up central Belgrade, so that the world’s cameras could show a ‘people’s revolution’.

At every stage, the covert aid and organisation provided by the US and British intelligence agencies were decisive, as they had been on many occasions before and since, all over the world. Yet for some reason, it is acceptable to say, ‘The CIA organised the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq in Iran in 1953’, but not that it did it again in Belgrade in 2000 or Tbilisi in 2003. And in spite of the well-known subterfuge and deception practised, for instance, in the Iran-Contra scandal in the mid-1980s, people experience an enormous psychological reluctance to accept that the British and American governments knowingly lied us into war in 2002 and 2003. To be sure, some conspiracy theories may be outlandish or wrong. But it seems to me that anyone who refuses to make simple empirical deductions ought to have his head examined.

Before I launch into defending the administration, I should let you know my opinion of Dubya. I won't vote for him. I believe that he has done more real damage to the Constitution in three years, than klinton did in his entire eight years in office. Oh, I'm sure that klinton would have done much worse, but he was blocked by a Republican Congress - more or less the same Republican Congress that now gives Dubya a pass for his disregard for the Constitution. In short, I think that Dubya's domestic cure for terrorism is much worse than the disease and far overshadows the good that he has accomplished in the military war. But, the key word is "domestic".

I just want the liberals out there to know where I'm coming from, before I shoot holes all through their ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's really easy to understand why their conspiracy theories don't hold water.

The vast majority of the world's journalists and editors are admitted liberals, who would like nothing better than to find any evidence of a conspiracy involving Dubya.

There are thousands of hungry would-be Woodwards or Bernsteins out there, digging into every little unexplained or suspicious event surrounding the war on terrorism, hoping to make it into the big time.

For there to be a government conspiracy, to make it look like a whole bunch of disparate groups are indeed linked to one organization, thousands of people, in both the US government and foreign governments would have to be involved.

There is an old adage that applies here.

"The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead."

There would have to be far too many people involved to keep it a secret. Some people would disagree with the strategy. Others would be slighted, for not getting the promotion that went to someone else. Yet, others would take advantage of the situation to claim their 15 minutes of fame. If it were a government conspiracy, there would be leaks all over the place.

There aren't!

The numerous leaks that would be inherent in such huge conspiracy, just aren't present.

In fact, the only credible person to come forward with anything close to evidence of a conspiracy, is Paul O'Niell and all that his evidence suggests is that the administration was preparing for war in Iraq. The fact that they were doing so long before the 9-11 attacks, just demonstrates adequate foresight. If the truth be known, they probably prepared for war with North Korea, Syria, Iran and even China, as well. In fact, I would imagine that they probably have plans for war in every Middle Eastern country. To do anything less, would be totally irresponsible. It's called being prepared. I wouldn't want to think that any administration didn't have a plan to invade or defend against any of our potential enemies. So, even O'Niell's statements don't qualify as evidence of a conspiracy.

If the administration were engaged in this type of conspiracy, there would be lots of smoke. We might not be able to see the fire, but the smoke would be evident all over the place. It isn't!

Even a grade schooler could see that the conspiracy theorists are just trying to invent reasons for people to dislike Dubya. By doing so, they do more harm to their cause, than good. That's because after falsely crying wolf so many times, when they turn their attentions to Dubya's all to real domestic transgressions, the people just dismiss those protestations, as well.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Dubya, but his military policy is certainly not one of them. If I fault his military policy at all, it is in the time he took to act. But, I'll grant that once he did act, it was decisively and for that I give him credit.

The real problem with Dubya is not in his military policy, but in his domestic policy. In fact, Dubya's domestic policy is doing more damage to our country, by seriously subverting our Constitution, than the terrorists could have done, had they flown a hundred planes that day in September of 2001. Because of Dubya's domestic response to the 9-11 attacks, even if we kill every al-Qa'eda terrorist in the world, they will still have won, because the USA will never be nearly as free as it was before the attacks and Dubya's response to them. After all, history shows that once a people allow government to take away some of their rights, regardless of reason, that government will never return those rights to the people without bloodshed.

The operative word in that last sentence is "allow". We still have a chance to reverse these assaults on the Constitution. But, if we reelect Dubya, we will have effectively ceded the 4th, 6th and 10th Amendments to the federal government and neither we nor our children will ever get them back without bloodshed.

The liberals don't need to invent some imagined foreign transgression to make Dubya look bad. They have a plethora of good solid reasons right here at home. All that it requires is that they compare Dubya's actions to the limits on his power, as laid out in the Constitution and its amendments. Of course, that probably explains why the liberals don't want to attack Dubya on this issue. After all, liberals have no more use for the Constitution than does Dubya.

Interesting post dirtboy.

IMO, John Galt is pretty much a one note Somba, when it comes to the war with Saddam.
I believe he calls folks that believe there might still be WMD's in Iraq- "WMD-Deadenders" He is absolutely convinced that they were all destroyed. Fine.
I believe he also makes assertions that the AQ "cave dwellers" are a hyped up threat, and that the war on terrorism is a conspiracy to sneak this goofy amnesty deal through. OK.

However;
It's fair to consider JohnGalt's assertions that there are no WMD's in Iraq keeping this in mind:

1. There isn't proof positive that they still do exist.

2. There isnt proof positive that they DON'T still exist, or that some bio/nerve agents have been possibly smuggled out of the country.

*The fact that test results come back *inconclusive* on a weapon, or that they haven't *yet* been found, does not eliminate the possibility that they still do exist, especially when the world knows for a fact that Saddam did in fact use chemical and biological agents on the Kurds. *(see Falsifiability, below)*

Keeping an open mind;
The following is helpful to look at any conspiracy claims or assertions, Pro and Con.

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
By James Lett; Professor of Anthropology

Excerpts:

Falsifiability
It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.
It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.

Logic
Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. If the argument passes these two tests, however -- if it is both valid and sound -- then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

An argument is said to be "valid" if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is "sound" if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. Although philosophers have codified and named the various forms of valid arguments, it is not necessary to master a course in form logic in order to apply the rules of inference consistently and correctly An invalid argument can be recognize by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

Comprehensiveness
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive -- that is all of the available evidence must be considered.

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification.

Honesty
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.