Don't let your tin foil hat get too tight.

The following quote is probably representative of a significant portion of the internet reaction to today's bomb plot story.

“Unable to window dress the obvious failure to eradicate growing resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan—even with the mighty propaganda power of a complaisant media—the neocon intelligence apparatus has staged yet another terrorist event, or would be terrorist event.”

I'm not after anyone in particular here so I'm not going to provide a link unless anyone asks. In a couple of days Google will satisfy your curiosity anyway.

So let's get down to business with a few obligatory statements that I probably have to make in the same way that anyone in the mainstream has to start with a condemnation of such plots before going on to make even the most minute of criticisms of official doctrine.

Firstly, I am entirely open to the possibility that this alleged plot is a fabrication along the lines discussed above. It is damned suspicious timing (although more of that in a moment). Secondly, I do have deep suspicions about several of the terror attacks of recent years, doubts that become positively cavernous when it comes to September 11th. Thirdly, yes I do know what the phrase cui bono means.

But here's my problem. It is an accepted plank of the anti-war movement's argument that actions do have consequences and that policies do have repercussions. Britain and the UK are hated by so many, so we argue, because of our long-standing policies in the Middle East. These pre-date September 11 by fifty years or more (at least) and concern western policy regarding energy resources, support for dictators and, of course, Israel. It is not a tide of unreconcilable, inplacable Islamist lunatics that we face but a handful who feed on the genuine grievances of the masses (and all manner of buried official reports and declassified assessments support this). 'Drain the swamp,' we cry.  'End the oppression' and those few genuine boggle-eyed Caliphateers will wither into  impotent obscurity. And I sincerely believe we are right.

So why is the case that, while accepting this general principle that our policies have bred murderous rage and resentment, the first reaction of so many to events such as today's is immediately to assume governmental conspiracy (CIA, MI6, Mossad, Neocons, whatever)?  Armchair Generals are bad enough and many of us have had to sit across a pub table from some stocky dullard who thinks a shelf groaning with Andy McNab or Tom Clancy makes him James Bond's best mate. But the left seems to breed its own kind of pub bore equivalent. The guy (and it usually is a guy) who feels able to pronounce immediately that the latest event 'definitely'  looks wrong, suspicious, or is 'clearly'  a false flag operation. I've lost count of the number of times, after an atrocity or an 'atrocity prevented', some blogger or poster to board or box has sat back, filled their pipe and said sagely, 'looks like psy-ops to me'. No evidence is required and challenges are met with accusations of naivete and mental subservience to The Man, or simply a self-satisfied cui bono? - as if responding in Latin is too enigmatically clever not to be right.

'Who benefits?', it may surprise some people to learn, is a principle of enquiry, not an argument. Blair and Bush can use both real or falsified atrocities to strip us further of our civil liberties and advance their foreign policy. You can't use the principle to distinguish between real and fake with any reliability. In fact, in such generalised instances as these, the principle has virtually zero analytical value since, for instance, the political left also has benefited from the spurious 'war on terror'. Noam Chomsky's book sales shot up following September 11th; makes you wonder...

Nor is the timing argument especially useful. Yes, the timing of today's little event could be construed as convenient. But it would have been convenient two weeks ago. Come to that, it would have been two months or two years ago. In the present climate in particular, it's virtually an unfalsifiable argument to say that the timing makes a bombing or averted bombing suspicious. Yes, our leaders do have things they want to distract us from, but with the present two in particular when wouldn't that be the case? There's also the stronger version of the argument, that the event is covering up something else we don't know about and we don't know about it because they're covering it up.

Today's incident may very well be a con or, at the very least, heavily stage-managed for propaganda value. I'm not ruling that out for a second but neither am I going to assert it immediately. If there's an accumulation of evidence and discrepancies then I may nail my colours to the mast and holler out in true Victor Meldrew style. But at the moment there's no evidence of anything yet -only suspicions based on past form: and past form is only ever suggestive -otherwise we'd allow courts to convict on records and not cases.

I'm not calling for uncritical belief in government spin but nor should we uncritically adopt the polar opposite position that it's all lies, lies, lies. How can we hold to the position that our policies have produced misery, oppression and rage if we're not also willing to entertain the possibility -the likelihood even – that misguided people may actually act upon that? Is it some form of cognitative dissonance? Knee-jerk reactions like the one above do nothing for the real left's credibility and everything to help the faux left convince people that we have our tin foil hats on too tight.

To reiterate, I am not discounting the possibility that today might have been fabricated or massively embellished for PR purposes. What I am doing is admitting that I do not know -and I doubt there's anyone else banging away at the keyboard tonight who does. Wait and watch.

So let's keep an open mind by all means. But don't let your brains fall out.

Comments

[Raoul Djukanovic]

Nice post. Never a bad idea to keep an open mind, I reckon, at least unless the evidence is damning. But that said, the extent of the hyping today made me wonder why we weren't hearing more details. Whoever got busted (and I have no evidence to suggest they weren't plotters), what's the basis for the bigger than 9/11 spin that a "police source" was merrily putting about from the outset? Not a lot other than conjecture as yet. That and the "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" comment got my antennae buzzing without the need for tinfoil, especially once Bush popped up to spout Hitchenisms about Islamic fascism. Opportunism knocks and all that.

[Raoul Djukanovic]

Ahem. Hitchenisms. I've been supping at his altar.

[Raoul Djukanovic]

Which would make it Hitchensisms. If that didn't sound daft. I'll get me coat.

[Gerbil001]

Raoul,

I certainly agree that the hype to say is overboard and, for that reason, I too am suspicious. But assuming an entirely genuine terrorist attrocity, would the hype be any less? I suspect not but I suppose it is possible that a threat discussed but downplayed might seem more plausible. But then they may know that and so deliberately downplay it in order to...

you see the problem, of course.

Regs,

G001

[Raoul Djukanovic]

As you note, we just don't know. Perhaps it's just the general lack of due journalistic scepticism that bugs me. Which isn't to say everyone should report their fantasies either.

[Kebz]

Your mistake is in equating every critic/cynic with the guy down the pub. In the circumstances where any real information is in the possession of the 'authorities', everybody is bound to have their own take on events. Real information is usually released not as straight information but as spin and half-truths. Yes it is important to keep an open mind yet how do we judge an apparently straightforward piece of information. Suppose the authorities announce someone is arrested at a particular address with ingredients for chemical explosives, that fingerprint matches have taken place, physical evidence has been collected and witnesses are available. Which one of us is going to visit the address, look at the actual evidence or talk to the witnesses? Should we rely on journalists to do this ? I'm not going to go into the failures of corporate media here but you recognise that their is no real independent source we can turn to. Months later it may appear that the person was innocent but the damage is done BY THE MEDIA. The truth may be warranted a small paragraph or two here and there later but it is too late to counter the effect of front page headlines and round the clock coverage of a narrowly avoided disaster and an official conspiracy theory. Yes, people of all persuasions tend to concoct conspiracy theories. That is because our brains naturally want to construct a pattern around some apparent facts (or lack of facts). The fact is those pattern may look different to different people due to the architecture of their brain. The brain has a tendency to fill in missing bits without being asked. Also few people want to look dumb when taking part in discussions about daily news events with their colleagues. Faced with this peer pressure and the inevitably incomplete nature of the official story, it isn't that surprising that people have their own theories and want to talk about them. There are a hardcore theorists on all political wings but you can easily recognise those.