[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks

[Stefano Vaj]

On 10/7/07, Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is quite easy to assemble a prima-facie case for *passive*
> involvement:  that prima facie case simply involves the deliberate
> avoidance of all efforts to counter a pending terrorist attack, in the
> hope that the attack would get through and give the administration the
> excuse it needed for implementing its policies.


This is what I assume Stefano meant by "passive involvement".  [Stefano:
> correct me if I am wrong].


Correct. Of course, it may go from pure inertia to some forms of
"facilitating", and there again it may involve different levels of people
and different degrees of knowledge.

The one piece of evidence that counts against this passive involvement
> scenario is that the administration is so stupid at its highest level
> that thinking that far ahead is impossible for it.
>

Sure. But "inside" simply means American, and need not refer to the
administration - that is, ultimately the President - as such. Some theories
even suggest that Bush and his immediate staff were to an extent the
not-too-reluctant "victims" of forces and groups who were afterwards to see
their weight and power significantly enhanced. Not that this alternative
possibility definitely excludes the possibility you are taking into
consideration.

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071008/57e84db2/attachment.html>