Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

William Seger

(10,923 posts)

17. "Demolishing" what?

Reply to Ace Acme (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 09:29 AM

Nov 2013

The Standard Conspiracy Theory asserts that the purpose of MIHOP was to justify a War on Terror and specifically to justify invading Iraq. That theory makes no sense if the main perps were Saudis, so at the very least you are inventing some other unspecified purpose. If you want your new motivation theory evaluated, you'll have to actually state it.

Anyway, you are missing the argument and attacking a straw-man: Chomsky does not claim that as evidence against MIHOP, but rather as a reason for why MIHOP is so implausible -- i.e. it's an "extraordinary claim" that the plot was to use Saudi terrorists to justify an invasion of Iraq -- which raises the bar for the level of evidence that would be required to make it sound plausible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11 [View all] jakeXT Nov 2013 OP

Bingo cpwm17 Nov 2013 #1

What makes you think Saudis doing it means no MIHOP? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #3

If you move goalposts and invent new CT's cpwm17 Nov 2013 #14

I'm not inventing any CTs. I'm just demolishing your bogus and unintelligent certainties. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #15

Chomsky did a good job of showing how nonsensical the popular 9-11 CT is cpwm17 Nov 2013 #16

Chomsky only showed his own nonsense Ace Acme Nov 2013 #18

How did 9-11 go down and what's your evidence? cpwm17 Nov 2013 #21

Try evaluating the logic instead of the source. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #23

Chomsky makes sense; you do not William Seger Nov 2013 #22

Your points 3,4,5, and 6 are compleat nonsense. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #24

Thanks William Seger Nov 2013 #25

In your dreams. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #28

"Demolishing" what? William Seger Nov 2013 #17

There is no contradiction between your postulated purpose of a MIHOP op and the use of Ace Acme Nov 2013 #19

Chomsky a "left gatekeeper" ?! William Seger Nov 2013 #2

So Chomsky is not a lefty? That's a silly thing to say. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #4

So Chomsky is a "gatekeeper?" That's an absurd thing to say. (n/t) William Seger Nov 2013 #5

It's not at all absurd. He says JFK and 9/11 are of no interest Ace Acme Nov 2013 #6

No offense, but it could be that Chomsky is much smarter than you William Seger Nov 2013 #7

Maybe, and maybe not. The jury's still out on that. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #10

It's not at all absurd. He says JFK and 9/11 are of no interest Ace Acme Nov 2013 #9

I thought the label is common knowledge and nothing new jakeXT Nov 2013 #8

"Common" among "truthers" perhaps William Seger Nov 2013 #11

His claim is "Even if it were true...who cares" /nt jakeXT Nov 2013 #12

That doesn't make him a "gatekeeper" William Seger Nov 2013 #13

His reputation as an anti-authoritarian is what makes him an effective gate-keeper. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #20

Ah! Brilliant! William Seger Nov 2013 #26

I didn't say that. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #27