Forwarded from Anthony (conspiracies)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jared's method of arguing fails the test of simple logic, not to
mention more complicated dialectics. He wants us to accept 'probable
cause' as proof of guilt!

Please keep me out of his courtroom if I am ever accused of any
crime.

He wrote:

"Great. So now Lou, what about you? If we provide solid evidence,
what they call in legal jargon "probable cause", that Bush, Cheney,
whoemever, had to have done certain things or 9-11 could not have
happened as it did, because defense facilities existed at the time of
9-11 which without extraordinary measures should have responded prior
to the Pentagon attack, will you also concede that here an actual
PLAN (or if you must, conspiracy) was involved?  And will you also
circulate said evidence, so those who produce it do not stand alone?"

I think it is clear from all that Jared has written to this point
that he has no proof. To this point all of his points have
demonstrated inconsistencies in official stories - but they have not
proven any of his conclusions.

The fact that Osama Bin Laden was connected to the CIA, possibly
until recently, is no news. The CIA could easily have worked with him
after his organization started attacking US soldiers. They could have
worked with him in Kosovo even while they could have been plotting
his death.

He could have been working with them, even while he was plotting
their deaths.

Or don't you think there can be conspiracies within conspiracies?
(Jared?)

Don't you remember Manuel Noriega?

The existence of conspiracies - about which we have only indirect and
partial knowledge - does not prove a particular conspiracy theory,
e.g. Jared's - nor does it prove that they are the motive force of
history.

All the best, Anthony

--
Louis Proyect, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx on 11/11/2001

Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.