Re: Techno-Logic

Wow. And I who really thought that my previous conspiracy theories were a
bit too mushy for this mailing list! Which made me wonder: is there a
specific distinction between conspiracy theories and speculation? The
dogmatism and the unstated hypothetical nature of the argument?

Carl Nordlund



-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fran: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu]For
John Leonard
Skickat: den 13 februari 2003 06:42
Till: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Amne: Re: Techno-Logic


New forms of warfare? Steven, I thought you at least must be aware by now
that the WTC atrocity was self-terror, that is, arranged by U.S. military
intelligence. It probably wasn't even the planes that brought the towers
down, they were special effects around a classic demolition. This was
nothing new - I've researched it, and every single U.S. foreign war has
been set off by self-terror, provocation or deceit on the U.S. side. And
the same cliques and dynasties have been involved, too. Only thing new here
might be that they collected a $3 billion insurance profit in the bargain,
but that's probably old hat too.
Come on, catch up, folks, the WTC scam is old news! Don't get stuck with a
phony fascist bill of goods, get up to speed. You could start at
www.waronfreedom.org/links.html, or www.copvcia.com .
Important: If we can get people to see the WTC fraud, they can also see the
whole Iraq thing is a fake, too.
Only thing new, IMO, is the Internet. This time it won't take 55 years for
the story to come out, like it did with Pearl Harbor. That could finally be
curtains for this old bunch of robber barons. Which might be why they are
playing such a high stakes game now.


At 19:02 12.2.03 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 2/12/2003 2:13:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>wwagar@binghamton.edu writes:
>
>Warren--I agree with you that part of the significance of the World Trade
>Center attacks lies in its demonstration of the possibility of new forms
>of warfare.  I am not sure how this will hasten the decline of US
>hegemony.  The emergence of new forms of warfare has always been part of
>hegemonic transitions.
>
>In all likelihood, states will begin the process of learning how to adjust
>to these forms of warfare, based on the heightened destructive power made
>possible by modern technology, medicine, warfare, etc and the high
>concentrations of people (office buildings, malls).  I can imagine two
>ways this'll be done.  One, turn the whole of modern society into a
>garrison (the direction the US has begun to take--although I suspect its
>doomed to accelerate rather than hinder the process of making society
>sabateur prone).  Two, begin the process of thinking through how to
>produce technology and living spaces not prone to this sort of attack (no
>sign of this yet, to say the least).
>
>But basically, I agree that transformations in the nature of warfare need
>to be incorporated into analysis of contemporary change.
>
>Steven Sherman
>
> >   I would only add that another logic is now at play in the world,
> > which could radically compress the time needed for the United States to
> > topple and for others to take its place, perhaps to topple just as
swiftly
> > in their turn.  I refer to the logic of technology.  Not just the logic
of
> > "high tech," vastly expensive and often available only to states, but
also
> > the power that comparatively "low" technology can give any disciplined
> > individual or organized group.  The logic of the Tokyo subway gassing,
the
> > Oklahoma City bombing, the kamikaze attack on the WTC, and the Afghan
> > mujahideen.
> >
> >    It is likely that we are only in the earliest and most primitive
> > stages of a whole century of sabotage, which will be able to bring down
> > the most "powerful" states, no matter how well armed, taking advantage
of
> > the densely interlocked nature of modern economies and communication
> > networks.  There have been saboteurs and guerrillas since the beginning
of
> > time, and most of the so-called terror wreaked in the last few years has
> > come nowhere near realizing its state-busting potential.  But the fact
> > that the WTC attack, for example, did significantly deepen the
depression
> > already in progress in the U.S. is a bellwether of things
> > to come.