![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusThe boyfriend has a coworker who is absolutely certain that the Bush adminstration destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. I keep explaining to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru why this is idiotic. The trouble with specific conspiracy theories is that people (who hate and distrust Bush, for example) want to believe them so badly, logic starts to fray in the face of their fervor.
I'm not against all conspiracy theories. I believe that JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter. But the JFK assassination theory passes my Three Rules.
Wait. You haven't heard of my Three Rules?
Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory From One That Makes Sense
Rule One: No cherry-picking the facts.
The conspiracy theory has to take into account all the facts available, even if the theory argues with them. If any inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand ("oh, of course the government says that"), you have a crackpot theory – do not pass go, do not collect $200. The strength of a good conspiracy theory is in the additional information not covered by the mainstream media not in ignoring well-established facts.
Rule Two: No one is a super-genius (except in James Bond).
The conspiracy theory can't presume the culprit becomes suddenly brilliant and competent when they've proved to be a bumbling idiot in the past and since. The bad guy (or guys) has to be capable of pulling it off. A good conspiracy theory doesn't expect the culprit(s) to act out of character or be any smarter than they are on an average day.
An off-shoot of this is the cast of thousands all acting like super-geniuses rule. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more likely the secret will get out, and the more likely the conspiracy will make mistakes. Ask any general. The bigger the operation, the more problems multiply.
Rule Three: No one has a crystal ball.
The conspiracy theory can't assume that the bad guys can read the future. If the bad guy's motive depends upon a complicated chain of events – "See, first they did X, then Y happened, and then Z, and then N, then after that there was W and then, voila! They got what they wanted" – the theory is a house of cards. Vast numbers of conspiracy theories fail because they project what we know in the present ("this is what happened") onto the past ("so they must have known this would happen"). A good conspiracy theory assumes a measurable and predictable result which could have been known at the time.
This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are wrong. Sometimes, they are out to get you. ;) But let's shoot down the stupid conspiracy theories, shall we?
wildernessguru why this is idiotic. The trouble with specific conspiracy theories is that people (who hate and distrust Bush, for example) want to believe them so badly, logic starts to fray in the face of their fervor. I'm not against all conspiracy theories. I believe that JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter. But the JFK assassination theory passes my Three Rules.
Wait. You haven't heard of my Three Rules?
Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory From One That Makes Sense
Rule One: No cherry-picking the facts.
The conspiracy theory has to take into account all the facts available, even if the theory argues with them. If any inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand ("oh, of course the government says that"), you have a crackpot theory – do not pass go, do not collect $200. The strength of a good conspiracy theory is in the additional information not covered by the mainstream media not in ignoring well-established facts.
Rule Two: No one is a super-genius (except in James Bond).
The conspiracy theory can't presume the culprit becomes suddenly brilliant and competent when they've proved to be a bumbling idiot in the past and since. The bad guy (or guys) has to be capable of pulling it off. A good conspiracy theory doesn't expect the culprit(s) to act out of character or be any smarter than they are on an average day.
An off-shoot of this is the cast of thousands all acting like super-geniuses rule. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more likely the secret will get out, and the more likely the conspiracy will make mistakes. Ask any general. The bigger the operation, the more problems multiply.
Rule Three: No one has a crystal ball.
The conspiracy theory can't assume that the bad guys can read the future. If the bad guy's motive depends upon a complicated chain of events – "See, first they did X, then Y happened, and then Z, and then N, then after that there was W and then, voila! They got what they wanted" – the theory is a house of cards. Vast numbers of conspiracy theories fail because they project what we know in the present ("this is what happened") onto the past ("so they must have known this would happen"). A good conspiracy theory assumes a measurable and predictable result which could have been known at the time.
This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are wrong. Sometimes, they are out to get you. ;) But let's shoot down the stupid conspiracy theories, shall we?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 05:33 pm (UTC)Really? And what proof do you have for that?
Bush has never used his military advisors. I don't buy it. He's fucked up in Iraq because he doesn't listen to them. Look. My boyfriend is a military analyst and he can tell you: Bush. Doesn't. Listen. He doesn't use his military people as advisors on how to do operations. He fires (or forces into retirement) anyone who tells him how things should be done. Total incompetence has been the result.
Look down the list of commanders: Gates, Abizaid... all the back. Not one of them he's listened to.
July 2002, Washington Post reported that �top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff� believe that Saddam Hussein�s regime �poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.� Bush ignored them.
Wesley Clark, Joseph P. Hoar, John M. Shalikashvili, Tony McPeak, Gen James L Jones, Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, Gen Anthony Zinni, Gen Henry H. Shelton and Thomas G. McInerney all spoke out before the war that the US couldn't sustain a war in Iraq. Bush ignored them.
General James L. Jones, the four-star commander of the Marine Corps who took over as NATO�s supreme allied commander was against the Iraq war. Bush ignored him.
Brent Scowcroft the National Security Adviser to President Bush�s father was against going into Iraq. Bush ignored him.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post against going into Iraq. Bush ignored him.
Brent Scowcroft wrote an op-ed against going into Iraq in the Wall Street Journal. Bush ignored him. F
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger said on ABC News that there was no reason to go after Saddam Hussein. Bush ignored him.
Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser to President Carter said we shouldn't go into Iraq. Bush ignored him.
Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded allied forces during the Gulf War, warned against invading Iraq without the support of allies. Bush ignored him.
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who served as special envoy to the Middle East, said again we shouldn't go into Iraq, there were other more pressing issues. Bush ignored him.
James Baker, former secretary of state and a close friend of the Bush family, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times stating that the US would suffer internationally if they didn't have world support for going into Iraq. Bush ignored him.