I'm curious as to what defines a Conspiracy Theory? I'm regularly accused of being a conspiracy theorist, because I have belief that every action has an opposite and equal reaction, especially when it comes to politics and the law. I have an expectation of seeing a paper trail to support a judgement/belief and a lot of times that doesn't materialize, or something completely different develops. When I point that out I get hammered with being a conspiracy theorist and living on the fringe. But what is wrong with looking for a pattern of consistency and holding up our elected officials to doing what they say they are doing, or producing some damn good reasons for doing what they ARE doing?
A perfect example is the military engagement in Iraq. What are the reasons for being there? First it terrorism and Iraq's support of terrorism. Well that didn't sell well at all. Then there was WMD. Well those weren't found and a lot of discussion has come forward that indicates the threat was never there to begin with. Time for a change in story. Next it was to remove a potential threat to peace in the Gulf. It turns out the Hussein was not considered a threat by anyone in the military of any country and the intel that pointed to that was so flawed that no one would take it seriously. Finally it's to remove a tyrant and grant freedom to the people of Iraq. Now this is something that doesn't appear to be true, or at least be working in any fashion, and is not even popular in Iraq. So there are four different stories that have floated out of the Whitehouse in regards to this action, and none of them are too believable. So what do you do?
For me I look at what the men in question have done in the past, their present connections, actions and their motivations. Based on the lack or plausible explanation, and the ever changing story, of going into Iraq the motivations come seriously into play. From this you formulate an opinion as to what the real motivators could be and base your opinion on the facts at hand. So what is wrong with this? It isn't like saying man never walked on the moon and that it was all a sound stage production (not much evidence to prove that at all, and where is the motivation to do it over and over again?). Its a common sense deduction made on the information researched and cooberated by the actions of those in question. To me it certainly makes a lot more sense than idly standing by and believing everything that comes out of the Whitehouse, especially when they keep changing their story. Its funny, but to the guys I work with, who do a lot of investigation, when someone keeps changing their story its normally a tip off to the fact they are hiding something or out right lying. So why is that different for the federal government? Why does noticing that immediately make you conspiracy theorist? Anyone? Anyone?
|