From: Dossy (dossy@panoptic.com)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 08:43:18 MST
On 2002.01.08, J. R. Molloy <jr@shasta.com> wrote:
> From: "Dossy" <dossy@panoptic.com>
> > The fact that I present a controversial and unpopular worldview,
> > you feel is going to make people (especially those who are
> > intelligent and respectable, as you say) feel negatively towards
> > Extropians as a whole?
>
> No, the fact that you presented a ludicrous and wildly irrational conspiracy
> theory, prompts reasonable people to either repudiate or ignore you.
You know, many called what I presented "ludicrous" or "sick" or
"wildly irrational" ... yet nobody's been able to really give
reasons why other than lots of poo-pooing.
I say that while unattractive and however improbable my conspiracy theory
is, it coincides with the recorded history and track record of the
United States government.
Back in World War I, we let a passenger ship (the Lusitania) get
sunk. It was carrying munitions, and people were unaware of it:
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch05.htm
"The Lusitania was a luxury liner that had been built in part with
government money and obliged to serve the country in time of war. In
addition to passengers, the Lusitania was carrying munitions. When it
arrived in British waters a German submarine sank it, and 1,198 people
died, including 128 Americans. In Britain and the United States,
people were outraged. American newspapers stated as fact that no war
material had been aboard the Lusitania. The secondary explosion of
munitions on board was erroneously described as a second torpedo.
Newspaper editors described submarine warfare as cruel and barbaric --
too barbaric ever to be employed by Americans."
Wow, the media tried to cover it up even back then. Surprised?
We sent countless people to Indochina to be slaughtered. We
called it "the Vietnam war", right? I'd like to read this
book sometime:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_conspiracy/war_intro.html
Who here has heard of Watergate? We're not even sure what it really
was all about, but it was of high enough significance to cause
Nixon to resign. That's gotta be one big skeleton in that closet.
What about the "war on drugs"? I'm surprised nobody has called our
occupation in Afghanistan part of the "war on drugs":
http://www.drugtext.org/articles/ial5.html
The effect was the same as the CIA shifted its attention to
theterrorist war against Nicaragua and the Afghan resistance
againstSoviet occupation. The complicity of the Reagan-Bush
administrationsin the drug rackets in Central America as a part of
their Contrasupport operations is by now well known. Pakistan is
reportedto have become one of the major international centers of the
herointrade when Afghan manufacturers and dealers "found
theiroperations restricted after the Soviet invasion in 1979",and
moved the enterprise across the borders (South). "TheU.S. government
has for several years received, but declined toinvestigate, reports of
heroin trafficking by some Afghan guerillasand Pakistani military
officers with whom it cooperates",the Washington Post reported well
after the drug war was chargingfull steam ahead. United States
officials have received first-handaccounts of "extensive heroin
smuggling" by leadingAfghan recipients of US aid and the Pakistani
military establishment,who gave detailed information to the press in
Pakistan and Washington."Nevertheless, according to U.S. officials,
the United Stateshas failed to investigate or take action against some
(read "any")of those suspected". US favorite Gulbudin Hekmatyar,
theterrorist leader of the fundamentalist Hizbe-Islami Party,
isreported to be deeply implicated in drug trafficking. Other
reportsindicate that the Afghat rebels are being "debilitated
byincreasingly fierce local battles for the lucrative heroin
trade"(9).
Perhaps we're bitter because the heroin money from Afghanistan
ran out, after what we gave them in aid against the Soviets,
so we're sending in our muscle to "collect what's owed to us"?
We sell armaments and train militia in other countries just so we
can go there and expend our military budget. Sound unreasonable?
Our government does it.
1915. 1969-1970. 1968-1974. 1979. It goes on ...
While we all strive for physical and intellectual evolution, what
makes you think that politicans have changed much in the past 200
years?
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@panoptic.com
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:29 MST