>>Those that grew up under repressive regimes, where extra-judicial murders by the government were common, are usually pretty paranoid about all governments.....Therefore, the notion that the government would murder somebody that airs dirty government laundry appears perfectly plausible to them.<<
For sure. Brazilians may have good reason to be paranoid and mistrustful. My objection is to (1) the idea that nothing is as it seems, to (2) the projection of paranoid fantasies onto every media-worthy event and to (3) the assertion that those who believe the dog didn't bark because there was nothing for the dog to bark at are naive.
My general ideology is that, in most cases, Occam's Razor applies and that the large majority of humanity's mishaps are the result of incompetence, stupidity and greed, and not of complex criminal conspiracies.
That's not to say that I can not be drawn to the dark side when the evidence warrants. For example, I think that the circumstances of Princess Diana's death offer numerous investigation-worthy loose ends, as does the destruction of TWA Flight 800.
Nevertheless, I offer the observation that there are gaping holes in elmat's train of logic(?), which went like this:
(1) US troops who offer politically unpalatable observations regarding the situation in Iraq will be "suicided" (elmat's term).
(2) elmat knows that this kind of military fratricide is common because he talked (corresponded?, e-mailed?) with some geriatric Nazi, who offered some kind of corroborating hearsay "evidence."
(3) That the matter is further proven because it is obvious (at least to elmat) that the British Government assassinated David Kelly.
(4) Last but not least, anyone who does not share elmat's pov is some kind of milksop innocent.
This series of propositions, offered without the slightest shred of evidence, just does not seem to me to be worthy of serious consideration. |
