Subject: RE: beheading video link
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:56:47 -0500


Regarding Roger's assertion that the non-conspiratorial explanation is as
plausible as any other, I think he's right in that we cannot yet dismiss the
non-conspiracy theory (aka the coincidence theory).  But there are clearly
some highly questionable elements to the whole scenario.  On KPFT here, Amy
Goodman just had someone on (doing the fund drive thing) talking about
further inconsistencies regarding what the State Department told Berg's
family and later retracted, etc.  The whole thing is VERY fishy.  There is
enough to question about the official explanation that it is no longer clear
that it is "the simplest explanation" nor that abandoning it violates "a
fundamental rule of logic".  In fact, since there are glaring
inconsistencies, the simplest and most logical thing to do is to assume that
there is something seriously wrong with the official version, although
anything beyond that is clearly mere speculation.

One element I see running through your conversations on this is a sort of
either/or type of thinking.  Like either the CIA did it, OR Al Queda did it.
My limited studies of "black ops" kinds of actions leads me to believe that
there are very frequently overlapping interests between radically opposed
groups, with key players often being double and triple agents.  My
conspiratorial explanation of the 9-11 episode has always been that the job
was planned and executed by fundamentalist Muslim-Arab types, exactly as we
have been told, but that their operations were "intensely guided" by black
ops types from the US (and possibly others, like Mossad), although the
Muslim-Arab terrorists were likely unaware that they were receiving
substantial assistance from the same "Great Satan" they were out to attack.
So I think it's quite possible that this beheading operation was exactly
what Roger suspects: "some bad guys got him and boinked him", AND
simultaneously was a big CIA plot or something like that.

If it was, as Roger suggests, a pink unicorn named Ralph, then Ralph must be
a damned smooth operator, cuz I haven't seen any indication of his
involvement in any previous questionable activities.  There is a big
difference between conjuring up a hypothesis out of the blue, and extending
known historical patterns to explain current enigmas.  Granted, we are all
just speculating, but we are speculating based on well-documented facts.  It
would be a serious mistake to proceed AS IF our speculations were fact, but
it would be an equally serious mistake to avoid exploring the possibilities
that historical patterns suggest may be true.

ROGER: WARNING: Don't read any further, or you may have to go get drunk.

For you conspiracy buffs: no doubt it has occurred to you there are some odd
parallels of 9-11 with the JFK thing.  For example, there are World Trade
Centers throughout the world, including one in New Orleans, which at the
time of the JFK hit was known as the International Trade Mart, headed by
Clay Bertrand/Clay Shaw, who was the first (only?) person ever indicted for
participation in the JFK assassination; whereas JFK was on his way to the
Dallas Trade Mart at the time of the hit.  Also: evidence regarding the JFK
assassination was delivered to "George Bush, of the CIA", although George
the First denies working for the agency until he stepped in from nowhere to
become the DCI.  Also: Florida (now governed by a Bush) was both the home of
the anti-Castro Cubans alleged to have pulled the trigger on JFK, and also
was the site of the dubious flight-training school attended by Mohamed Atta
and his terrorist friends, and also was the site of the first anthrax case
post 9-11, and also was of course absolutely instrumental in fraudulently
putting the warrior-in-chief into office so that the US could respond
imperially rather than intelligently to the 9-11 attacks (not to mention the
stand-down that had to be orchestrated so that 9-11 could occur to begin
with, in a similar vein to the stand-down that preceded JFK's death).

-m