Re: [OPE] 'conspiracy theory'

From: Dave Zachariah <>
Date: Fri Jan 01 2010 - 20:16:56 EST

On 2010-01-02 01:19, Paul Zarembka wrote:
> That is, you believe our government, no "healthy skepticism" or
> "rational basis" required; further discussion of evidence unwarranted.
I'm well aware of this trick that aims to drag me into a discussion
about detailed events that are not of my interest. It is precisely as
Cockburn wrote:

     "What is the goal of the 9/11 conspiracists? They ask questions,
     yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall
     scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that's not up to them.
     So who is it up to? Who do they expect to answer their questions?
     When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or
     they simply rebound with another question."

I do not 'believe' the official documents of any particular
investigation for I have not read them. I have however read a sufficient
amount of state theory and history of West and South Asia to be able
give some assessment of the likelihood of models, conditioned on
knowledge before and after the particular set of events that interests you.

So let me spell it out:

Once you propose an *alternative* model to the one adopted by people
like Tariq Ali or Noam Chomsky, that begins laying out the historical
processes of West and South Asia, and the involvement of the US state
apparatus, since circa 1967 up to present-day, and explains where the
particular set of events in September 2001 fit in; only then I will be
interested in your take on this topic.

Until then I will take Pepe Escobar's piece in Asia Times from August
30th 2001 as an example of those who took these historical processes


//Dave Z
ope mailing list
Received on Fri Jan 1 20:34:07 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST