Sunday, January 16, 2011

Tracing a pattern in U.S. history

Robert Anton Wilson admired the revisionist historians of World War II who argued that Pearl Harbor was not simply an unprovoked, unexpected attack. (See the Lewis Shiner/Trajectories interview, Part Two.)

Related to that, I liked the posting Michael Johnson put up the other day. During a discussion on patterns and seeing patterns, he wrote:

I see 1898 and the US becoming an Imperial power starting with a
trumped-up bogus "attack." The Reichstag fire. Then, FDR or his people
knew about Pearl Harbor. Then, the Gulf of Tonkin. Then...9/11. Then:
Bush/Cheney lying and the press swallowing it: Iraq War.

But then: I know how EASY it is to see patterns.

I suspect I'm fooling myself somewhere along the line.

I SUSPECT. I don't "know."

Michael leaves out the Korean War; perhaps he hasn't researched it enough to offer an opinion. My only quibble with the events he does cite — not much of a quibble — is that I suspect the standard narrative that Al Qaeda carried out the attack as likely true but don't believe any of the attempts to tie it to Saddam Hussein.


3 comments:

michael said...

My main model of 9/11 is that Al-Qaeda did it; I find the idea that certain elements OUTSIDE Al-Qaeda knew it was coming and did nothing very interesting. But I don't "believe" it, as of this date and my current state of ignorance.

I haven't studied the origins of the Korean War nearly enough. But then, I haven't studied the origins of most of the other Incidents I cited nearly enough. I have some suspicions...

Anyone who believes Saddam was linked to 9/11 seems like a rube to me at this point. I never bought it for one second. Nor did I believe the other 11 or whatever it was narratives the NeoCons trotted out in order to go to war in Iraq.

Bobby Campbell said...

I find it interesting that with all the ways and means of deception attributed to the U.S. government that they wouldn't have simply "found" a payload of WMDs in Iraq at some point.

It seems preferable to many to suppose the powers that be are nefarious rather than incompetent. (Or even worse, possessed of simple human fallibility)

Probably some truth to all 3 interpretations!

Probably many misunderstandings as well.

Anarchy seems ineluctable, excelsior!

bc

Royal Academy of Reality 1132 said...

Did Saddam burn down the Reichstag?