@DW: I'm sad to hear it. Being a recovering "Internet security expert", I have to keep my paranoia on a very short leash, and I can't say that there's evidence that Bush had any advance knowledge. On the contrary, I found his sheepish look on the tape from the Florida class room quite sincerely sheepish. As for the rest of the administration, I can't say. Doubt it though, since the positive effects for the administration weren't necessarily apparent on beforehand. Could have gone really bad too, if the media consensus had been that they messed up big time.
When I think that the administration could stage something, I'm thinking more in terms of "a close call", where everyone gets out ok but the building blows up. Probably in a spot where Dubya would like his statue to be. I don't think they are willing to take the risk of staging an attack that kills any American citizens, since someone could theoretically get a bad conscience and talk too much while drunk in the arms of his or her secretary... The risk vs gain ratio is better on the first option.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=dragon wench]You know there are a few conspiracy theories around that argue the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the attack but did nothing because they thought it would provide the justification they needed to go into Iraq...
At first, I dismissed this as a pile of crap... I thought there was no way a government in a democratic country would allow for its own citizens to be slaughtered like that, the thought was appalling and I just could not conceive of it. I am cynical, but that notion was beyond even me.
Now, after everything that has happened... Well let's just say I'm no longer entirely sure... It would not be the first time such a tactic has been employed... Pearl Harbour springs to mind....[/QUOTE]
Well, the plausibility of any speculation (because evidence is incredibly scant) that Bush (or his adminstration rather) had prior knowledge (that is knew it was going to happen, not should have known) rest primarily on you making a case that it has happened before. Afterall without the idea of a like Pearl Harbor/FDR conspiracy this idea (Bush/911) is a hard sell.
So first you would have to make a plausible arguement that FDR had advanced knowledge that Pearl Harbor was going to happen, something which I doubt anyone can do. At the least, I have yet to see anyone do it. Pointing to intelligence and war-scenarios developed and emitting from the lower levels of the intelligence community just doesn't cut it in my eyes. It seems more plausible to suppose that in a buearcracy evidence from the bottom trickling up simply gets ignored rather then believed, discussed, and turned into a high level conspiracy which doesn't produce any solid evidence of its existance even 60 years after the fact.
Beyond that, it simply doesn't fit the character profile of FDR.
Hmm.. anyone see Fahrenheit 9/11? Thats one side of the issue anyway
One thing that I seem to agree with in that movie (though everything in the movie is HIGHLY biased) is that the federal government has never really seemed to move the terror alert to a "green" state. It's always orange, or yellow, or even red.
This could be ascribed to the ideal of keeping the public in a constant state of tension and alert in order to make the threat of terrorism constant, though it is impossible to have the terror threat ALWAYS be on peoples minds, the constant and sudden shifts of the alert level (with holidays and such as an excuse) seems to be one of the myriad of ways for the government to keep people's mind on the imminent threat of attack.
Any ideas on wheter this is true or not? It seemed like a fairly accurate theory to me, though since it came from one of Moore's movies I have a distinct suspicion of it from the start.
Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic
There have recently been a thread where we disgussed MM and his movies/views, (started off as F 9/11, but it became more general) in case you are interested. http://gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31982
As for your theory - it is certainly plausible, and corrosponds well, with many others post around here.
Keeping the public generally alarmed, makes it easier to "keep control" and also place new security meassures into effect. For instance, most will accept a prolonged security process at airports (or other trafic junctions) if it is done in the name of anti-terror. Especially if you just have heard that an attack is (possible) imminent.
Now - I'm usually not one for conspiracy theories, but there are strangely many things going on (that even I as an european/scandinavian) can see, withouth beeing in the thick of it. And these things seems to point at this terroristic thing being used more and more as a political tool.
Latest this Terror treath warning.
I don't think they are willing to take the risk of staging an attack that kills any American citizens, since someone could theoretically get a bad conscience and talk too much while drunk in the arms of his or her secretary... The risk vs gain ratio is better on the first option.
