Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning Feature: Conspiracy Theory 103 - Conspiracies of Convenience (Plus Kossascopes) (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That depends (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCrissieB

    If B is defined as a specific incident at a specific time by specific actors then you are correct.

    However if B a probable outcome of A then yeah you can say the outcome is inevitable. Particularly if you have past expereince to draw from that shows B is usually the result of A and in those cases I'm discussing we have ample evidence that this is the case.

    Larger trends in complex systems are very predictable. Individual events may be less so but big events are.

    For example in climate science because of complexity is it damn near imposible to predict the exact date and course of a hurricane a year in advance. However the science does allow us to say with near certainty that a hurricane will occure sometime during hurricane season and if we expand the timeframe far enough we can confidently predict that a class 5 hurricane will hit the Luisiana coast at some point in the next 50 years. So while no one could have predicted Katrina specifically, it was predicted that the question of a class 5 hurricane striking New Orleans was not a question of if but when.

    That's why while climate scientist can't predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow accurately they can credibly say that global climate change is taking place.

    The same applies to the economic collapse. I've known for some time that it was coming no I did not predict the exact date or circumstances of the collapse but based on knowledge of past events with similar circumstances (unregulated speculative markets gone wild) I could confidently say it was only a matter of time. I'll credit the "Masters of the Universe" with this much they kept the ball rolling much longer than I thought they could.

    But the Great Depression showed us exactly what the ultimate result of such policies would be and so here we are.

    In the case of a terrorist attack I was even more confident that it was a question of when not if based on my personal professional history.

    I know the main reason that we avoided much backlash prior to Gulf War 1 and I'm cognizant of the geopolitical changes that took place after our first war with Iraq that made such an attack far more likely (this conclusion of course borne out by the first World Trade Center bombing).

    Let me give you an experiment to illustrate why such an attack was inevitable. Go to a bar tonight and start shoving people about. At some point someone will take a swing at you. It may not be the first person it may not be the 5th but if you keep at it long enough someone will.

    That's been our foriegn policy for the last 50+ years we walk around the world pushing people around so it was inevitable that at some point someone was going to take a swing at us.

    Now maybe I'm naive but I do credit the people in the Bush adminstration with at least my level of inteligence and knowledge so surely they understood this dynamic as well.

    So they weren't at all surprised by the fact that an attack happened that's why they were ready to jump on the oportunity.

    The patriot act was ready they passed and signed that gargtuan bit of constitution shreading legislation in a little over a month. Obviously it was writen before September 11th.  

    The question is at what point does opportunism end and cupability begin. If you knew an event was likely and didn't even take the minimum steps to prevent or moderate that event can you really claim innocence? Is it unreasonable for others to question your intent when said event serves your purposes so blatantly?

    I say that those who ignore this reality are living in just as much of a fantasy land as the truthers with their remote control airplains and pulled buildings.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site