Reply #39: LIHOP

[k-robjoe]

It seems to me that you have this idea of LIHOP, that I don´t share.

It seems that if they get the warning signs that an attack is imminent, and they do nothing about it, just sit and wait for it to happen, then that, to you, is not LIHOP. And I don´t understand that kind of thinking.

And even if they hamper the investigations, and cut down investigations, whether it be investigations of the Bin Ladens, or investigations like "Able Danger" it seems that it doesn´t matter, because it doesn´t fit with your definition of LIHOP.

To your question : Have I ever had a serious discussion with anyone here who doesn´t agree with me? Yes, plenty.

Do I think they are all war apologists? No, but the wars have never been the subject. Until a thread a week or so ago, when I asked some who don´t agree with me how they feel about the wars, and the authoritarian turn.
But that is another subject.

The reason I asked you what your response would be to my argument against the wars, is because it seems to me that your thinking is sort of in an "academic bubble", where the wars etc is nowhere to be found. That there is a disconnect. And it seems to me that at every turn, you give them the benefit of a doubt. And it seems to me that you have to have a disconnect to give them the benefit of a doubt.

You say that you have the impression that I don´t care if I bring forth arguments that they allowed it to happen that are exaggerated. I do care about that.

So how is it? Are you convinced that nothing the Bush-administration did in the run up to 911 has any connection to the fact that they would benefit from a terrorist attack?

And are you convinced that the fact that they ignored the warnings, and sat down to wait for the attack, has got nothing to do with the fact that they would benefit from a terrorist attack?

Do you have any doubts? Are you giving them the benefit of a doubt?

Or do you have supicions that there is such a connection, but to you it doesn´t qualify as LIHOP?