Burnwinter wrote:
911 was an inside job, Saddam is hiding WMDs, the Russians hacked the DNC, Khan Shaykhun was a false flag operation.
The trouble with all these things is that true or false, they become the transient pretexts for the strategic manoeuvres in much larger struggles. They are not the reasons, they are the pretexts. The strategic moves happen regardless as a consequence of the way power is organised and the expression of its interests.
You can litigate these pretexts all you want, but by the time you've won in the court of public opinion, you'll be standing on the results of whatever those pretexts long since justified, staring at the new strategic horizon.
Really the only result of the final conclusive proof that the case for war in Iraq was a lie has been to chip away at misplaced faith in institutions.
Have you read David Cole's "[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Post-Cybernetic Judicial War" in Abstract Culture? It's the journal out of the CCRU (Land/Plant).[/font][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Relatively grounded ( đ ) discussion of axiomatic "systems" as it relates to the India/Pakistan conflict. It's what cybernetics has to offer when it's done well, I think. I mean, it's ridiculous, but in a way I've always enjoyed. [/font][/font]
