Conspiracy theorists: what’s their agenda?

Just for fun, BykerSink’s collected a host of information on recent Iraq conspiracy theories, with the biggest headline going to the idea that American Nicholas Berg was beheaded by the CIA in Abu Ghraib prison. It’s time to attack these ideas in reverse and uncover their agenda.

The answer lies not in a conspiracy’s complexity (fanciful though that can be), but in the implication that without the CIA and left to their own devices, non-westerners wouldn’t think of beheading someone or flying planes into skyscrapers; without the CIA to organise them there would be no terrorists. It’s an – actually quite racist – idea that only well educated and well funded westerners are clever enough to conspire for terror. Before the CIA, conspiracy theorists blamed Jews.

Yet all along the most believable (and quite simple) conspiracy theory – Iran duped US into war – goes largely ignored. Nobody disputes that Ahmed Chalabi sold WMD intelligence to the US or that his opposition to Saddam goes back to when Saddam was a US ally and Iran offered the greatest hope of Iraqi regime change. So the idea that Chalabi would have cut ties with Iran is more fanciful than the idea that Iran would have helped him make up stuff to sell to the Americans. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists don’t go for that because it shows non-westerners thinking for themselves.

US response: Abu Ghraib becomes Camp Redemption……Not a war for idealists

5 thoughts on “Conspiracy theorists: what’s their agenda?

  1. My own personal view is that Israel is behind most things. And I hope I don’t get accusations of anti-semtisicm chucked at me. There are plenty of Israelis who believe this too.

    I can see your point regarding CIA and terrorists. But I also believe that Al Qaeda is not the force we are lead to believe. I don’t believe we know everything about the 911 attacks. There is still no conclusive evidence that it was Al Qaeda. There is only the supposed video of Bin Laden talking about the attack. However whether it actually is him has aroused questions. In addition the translation of the video, kindly provided by the CIA, has also been doubted. (There is too much noise to actaully decipher what is being said.)

  2. I have a hard time believing that whatever Al Qaeda is, that it had the power and knowledge to pull of something like 911. And if you doubt that, which underpins all the wars since then, then you pretty much have to doubt everything.

    It’s widely accepted now that Pearl Habour was allowed to happen as an excuse for war. So why not 911 too.

  3. An interesting argument you present in this. Not one I agree with, but interesting all the same!

  4. How can you question the “agenda” of a group that doesn’t exist?

    By lumping all conspiracy theorists into one category, you make a critical mistake. The sheer variety of the theories undermines your assertion that this is one, cohesive “group” that has common interests to be served here. Hell, even the “official” 9/11 explanation is a “conspiracy theory”. At some point, we have to decide whether we want people thinking for themselves or not, and accept the attendant consequences of that decision.

    I really don’t understand how it’s in Iran’s interest to have the U.S. next door rather than Saddam. But at least it shows people thinking about foreign policy issues rather than just swallowing the latest CNN commentator’s crap. Isn’t it much more important for (historically isolationist) Americans to at least be thinking about these things than to have the “right” opinions?

  5. If the Berg video was cleanly shot and edited, I would have no problem thinking it was the work of terrorists. It’s just the weird way it was put together and the fact that Berg had a connection to Zacarias Moussaoui. It’s too much of a coincidence for me.

    But I also am convinced something strange happened on 9/11 that isn’t part of the official explanation. People in the government knew a lot more about 9/11 before the attacks than they are letting on.

Leave a Reply