Re: More on bin laden's convenient reversal of position

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxx>]

Truly amazing stuff J, really.

> Today Lou called me "Mulder." I am informed by Nestor the knowledgeable that
> Mulder is the star of "X-files": a guy who believes in little green men.
> Ahhh: a joke.

Indeed. However, Mulder is harmless and the writers don't believe the
conspiracies therein, you on the hand, do, and reduce your arguments to
semantically leveling of the word, "conspiracy", completely without
context...

> Lou's actual political argument is nonsense and it is astounding that he, who
> used to have nothing but praise for tenc.net, makes it.  What of Emperor's
> Clothes slogan, "CUTTING THROUGH A FOG OF LIES" How can one have uniform lies
> without conspiracy?

Yes, and you never answered if you continue to believe the planes never
really existed that hit the WTC....

> In answer to my point that the broadcasting of bin laden's speech to every
> American home was suspiciously convenient for creating an emotional climate
> reeptive to attacking Afghanistan, Lou says:

> <<
> Today's NY Times explains how bin Laden's video appearance on Al-Ghazeera
> was picked up by CNN and MSNBC. Once it appeared there, it was only a
> matter of time before it appeared everywhere. After all, the bourgeois
> media is always interested in market share, even when it comes to
> broadcasting the words of its sworn enemy >>

So? What's the point. Did it serve imperialism to do this? Yes. Is bin Laden
a sophisticated radical politician aiming to sway US public opinion (a la
FMLN or NLF?) NO. His group doesn't give a shit. Is this possible? Yes, IMO.
Does bin Laden offer more to imperialism than he 'detracts' from it by his
opposition to "the West"? Absolutely and without doubt. Do they have to work
together in hidden agreement, as you suggest? No, not at all. Like Stalinist
repression, often the "anti-imperialist" objectively offers imperialism the
propaganda tools, ALL the tools it needs to fight the "anti-imperialist".
This is the history of the the workers movement, no less Islamic terrorists.

> Is Lou seriously telling us that the mass media is not organized to lie to
> defend US foreign policy?

Only Lou can answer for Lou. Does the US media do what you suggest...yes,
but not always. Ever hear of the "Pentagon Papers"? Ever hear of Bonner for
the NY Times? Cconsidered by the Salvadoran gov't to be worth two divisions
of crack FMLN commandos for his writing on repression in El Salvador in the
New York Times. How does this square with your view of a solid front by
world news media? They are not consistent and do so only when the news is
worth homogenizing with US State Dept views for more narrow purposes
like...market share, advertising revenue, political inclination, etc.

> If there is no organization behind the scenes, how
> is it that the exact same lies are repeated in the exact same ways for ten
> years about the Serbs?  Is that because of ''market share?''  Does market
> share hate a Serb?

Yes, it does, in fact.

>  Does it hate the anti-KLA people in Macedonia?

Yes, it does, in fact.

>  Was it
> market share that induced every part of the US dominated media to praise
> Bosnia's Izetbegovic as a liberal democrat when in fact he was openly an
> Islamist terrorist?

In your opinion. Is this the "Islamist terrorist" vs. "Serb Chetnik"
arguement? Your flip uncritical defense of "all-things-Serb" only detracts
from your arguments.

>  Why wouldn't some - at least some - go for "market
> share" by exposing the lies told by the others?

You cannot argue like this J-man. You can't start...or continue...a
discussion with the view that from the get-go, all things told in the
Western media are lies. This is simply stupid and completely a-historical.
Each and every situation has to be examined in light of the facts of that
situation. You are backing yourself into a corner.

>  If this media stuff was NOT
> planned, how does it happen with such meticulous consistency?  Is it all
> coincidence?

For example?

> Describing the  route which the NY Times says bin laden's speech took (who
> knows if the Times is accurate? and why on earth do they find it necessary to
> describe the route?) does not contradict the fact that the powers that be a)
> did broadcast it all over and  put it on page 1 not (as with his earlier
> interview) on page 50 and b) that this came at precisely the time it was
> needed.

The speech is dropped off at Arabic language news service in Kabul. Since
this is not contested...you see conspiracy. Really? The corner you are
backing yourself into is getting closer... the speech supposedly took place
after 9/11. Oh yeah, the US gov't is extremely PISSED that the broadcast of
the post 9/11 speech even took place...they are now trying to censor US
newspapers and media that do this.

> And there's the clincher, conveniently overlooked by Lou in his apology for
> the US establishment: a week ago bin Laden said "America is not our enemy"
> and condemned 9-11 as a plot by the Jews, Russians, Serbs and Indians - and
> now, just when needed to justify the US attack, this clown completely
> switches position so that a) now he hates America and b) Islamists did 9-11
> and c) they should go to heaven (he makes a personal request to god to act on
> this.)

I didn't see this...which interview did this take place in? To this day, bin
Laden has yet to actually claim credit for 9-11 (I for one don't argue he
did until the evidence is produced like many gov'ts are asking for). He
praised the actions, but didn't take credit for it.

> If he wanted to defeat the US government - rather than help it - he would
> have continued to broadcast his innocence, blame it on the russians, serbs,
> indians and Jews, and say only monsters could accuse Islamists of doing 9-11.
> (which is exactly what he had said a week ago). So.......

Ah...IF he was rational, IF he were...a Marxist, IF he thought in
conventional political terms. He doesn't so your straw-man of rational bin
Laden falls flat...

> Does one have to see little green men to smell a rotten fish in that oh so
> convenient transformation?

Your straw-man, not anyone else's...

J! EVERYONE of the examples you use make you look foolish. You abstract the
word "Conspiracy" from it's context ENTIRELY!!! ALL the "conspiracies" you
try to use Marx and Lenin from were not meant in the secretive, below board
secretive world you seek to create from nothing. They were the popular,
wildly reported politics of the day. The assumption that capitalists don't
work in the open is understood to mean 'back room deals' as is common in the
popular democracies and decrepit monarchy of the the Tsarist courts. But
this is a far cry from your science-fiction view of events, more attuned to
Lyndon LaRouche than serious politics.

David Walters


=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message