Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
>>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
>> Source please.
> Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon.
In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”.
If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
> Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”.
Except that the opinion is question was not formed by critical thinking.
> If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem.
No, there's an important difference between having an a different opinion than "our overlords" and having an opinion that's a paranoid comic book fantasy.
> It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.
That's the kind of claim you need evidence for, it's not something you just get to assume (unless you're fine with defective reasoning processes). Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations." I wouldn't be surprised if that claim spawned from "9/11 truther" conspiracy theories.
Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true?
> Furthermore, even if it is true, it doesn't support the original outlandish claim that "The 'war on terror' was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations."
I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite is true. We should’ve spent the trillions of dollars using economic diplomacy instead. Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
> Where exactly would such “evidence” come from? Do you think the CEO of Raytheon would ever utter such a statement even if it were 100% true?
Just some examples: a leak or confession. People do sometimes have changes of heart. But until you can actually provide evidence, you're just making up "facts" that are convenient to you.
Also, the CEO of Raytheon is very unlikely to be the person that determined what the "war on terror" was meant to do.
> I fail to see how anyone could believe that bombing people from the sky and invading a couple countries would win over favor from potential terrorists. We should’ve...
That failing is yours. There seems to be a lot of hindsight bias there, as well as some weird misunderstandings.
> Now, one could argue honestly that our leaders are just complete idiots. I just happen to think they knew exactly what we were doing.
It's far more likely that "our leaders" were high on "end of history" idealism, and spurred to hasty action by a traumatic attack, and are nearly as unable to accurately predict how a complex world will behave as the rest of us.
You're still making a very big claim without evidence.
Isn't that often the thing with conspiracy theorists? They always have a reason why they don't have evidence and somehow that means they can claim anything that they want.
