Hanlon's Razor states:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
A conspiracy is simply multiple people working together towards an end-generally unlawful in nature.
This being said it is far more common to have a conspiracy of people working to cover up illegal acts.
The acts themselves can initially start as accidental or perhaps even well meaning-initially.
However, it usually snowballs because people do not address it and instead hide it. The lies build on each other and create a house of cards. At this
point comes to Recon game and revisionist history. If ever the real conspiracy is aknowledges by politicians, it could impugn the government back for
generations and tople political dynasties and vested interests.
After invading Iraq, no WMD's were found. We know in the months leading up to it that the Bush Administration was hammering WMD's and the threat
potential constantly. Quotes like "They have WMD's and they are working with Al Qaeda!" and "There is a definite threat from WMD's!" Essentially
everything about Iraq was elevated to near histerical levels of panic to justify the invasion. Later came various revision's with Pundits claims of
quotes people said, being contrary to readily available evidence on Youtube of interviews and press releases.
Now, enter Conspiracy Theories. Everything from it being an Oil Grab, to a diversionary tactic to petty chest thumping-since many of the same people
in the administration put Saddam in power or at least supported his climb.
Using Hanlon's Razor, we can boil it down to a first motivation possibility: "They actually believed there was a WMD threat and felt immediate need
to act. After they realized they were wrong and essentially led to the extreme debilitation of a nation and deaths and injuries of thousands, if not
millions. They began revisionism and bullying." The no bid contracts to their buddies is normal operating proceedure, only anectdotal as evidence of
During the Cold war, these same people (Rummsfeld, Cheney and the Bushs) were instrumental in creating the Red Scare by commisioning an investigation
into the Soviet Union that inflated the war drive and technological capability. Much of this is documented in "The Power of Nightmares" series. A
BBC Documentary about the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement and Islamic radicalism.
Please watch the following links (The Power of Nightmares is included), and while watching that documentary: Ignore the site itself-it's the
Dailykos, yes I know they have pro/con agendas. Does not change the BBC's documentary list which is aggregated there. While watching said
documentary, please think of what happened during the cold war with the current threats of Terrorism and squabbles about politicians not using the
word "Terrorist" as much as they 'should'.
It is getting more and more important to filter Conspiracies on merit. By this I mean neutrality. To be able to aknowledge potentials and not latch
onto hyperbole. To keep an open mind and adjust the hypothesis, or be willing to outright toss it out and start from scratch.
Afterall: An investigation that is not neutral is not an investigation. It is a witch hunt. Unless there is more attention to neutral approaches and
deliveries: The best Theory will always be marginalized and do no good.
A well writen and balanced investigation is called "Journalism" by the masses and scrutinized until acceptance. If anyone has any chance of making a
difference with their work. They must adopt journalistic intent and be able to weigh the evidence as worthy of discussing: True or not, some evidence
will get the rest of the conversation ignored by many people. Some evidence is completely left field and cannot be cooberated. Some evidence is
exceptionally important but underplayed.
Everyone on this site has the power to impact the world for the better. Put your talents to use above and beyond squabbling on a board. Listen to the
arguments of the "Debunkers" for that is the opposition you will find in the general public. Listen to those arguments and adapt your hypothesis.
Use the Debunker arguments to show you what you need to work on.
The Debunkers are your Peer Review source. If you can survive the crowd of debunkers here, your theories will survive being printed in a newspaper and
scrutinized by the masses.
Use your tools. Work to for change. Separate yourself from your Theory so you can look at the evidence objectively and make modifications as needed.
To address weaknesses. To enhance but not overblow, the strengths.
Thank you for your time.
[edit on 8-1-2010 by lordtyp0]