Reply #67: What if people think Z did it? [View All]

[Make7]

KJF wrote:

A jury won't convict you just because you benefitted from the insurance policy of the person you allegedly killed, but if you stand to collect under a policy it's fairly likely the prosecution will mention it. So I'm going to take your comment:

If the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. would be essentially the same whether 9/11 were an inside job or not, how can someone point to what happened after 9/11 as evidence that it was an inside job?

"If X would have collected under the insurance policy anyway whether he murdered Y or not, how can the prosecution point to what happened after the murder as evidence that X killed Y?"

I don't think that argument would impress the jury much, so it's reasonable for the 9/11 truth movement to point out who benefitted and it is evidence, just not very strong evidence.

But if you're trying to convince people that believe Z killed Y, then it probably would not be very convincing at all. Especially if Z also benefited in some way.

My impression is that the phrase "new Pearl Harbor" has generally been used to illustrate why the Bush Administration needed an attack like 9/11, and since they needed one the implication is that they planned them to advance the PNAC agenda. My belief is that if someone else carried out the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration would have taken advantage of the situation to implement those very same policies.

Others also benefited from the attacks on 9/11. Is everyone that gained something from the situation also a possible suspect?

KJF wrote:

Re Iraq/Chalabi: I think they always wanted Chalabi as dictator, but pressure from elsewhere forced a democracy - I really doubt Dick Cheney is a true believer in the natural democratic instincts of Arabs. I doubt they're doing all the IEDs and I think it would be unnecessary to do any of them, but I am beginning to wonder. If they're incompetent, then how come they're going to get a dictator, which is what they want. Have you read Svejk?

It is quite likely that their original intention was to have Chalabi running things post-invasion, but that doesn't seem possible anymore IMO. Appealing to the ideals of democracy is a well used device in U.S. foreign policy. It has never been a primary motivation before, and it isn't one now. It does make it sound like we have good intentions, but it's little more than a public relations campaign.

Competency in one arena does not necessarily mean competency in another. Perhaps we should wait to see how things turn out before we judge the Iraq War a success.

No, I haven't read Svejk. (I haven't made nearly enough time for reading lately.) I think I remember Joseph Heller mentioning it (if we are both talking about the same thing), so it has been in the back of my mind to get to it, but there are quite a few things ahead of it on my reading list. How highly do you recommend it?

- Make7